DHAL SINGH SAHU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010404312026 2026:CGHC:44582
NAFR
SOURABH
BHILWAR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed by
SOURABH BHILWAR
Date: 2026.10.16
10:41:08 +0530
WPS No. 7553 of 2026
Dhal Singh Sahu S/o Shri Sukhu Ram Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o
Village Auri Post Jamgaon (R) Tahsil Patan, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Government Of Home
Affairs Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur,
Chhattisgarh. Pin 492001.
2 - The Police Establishment Board Through Director General Of Police
(PHQ) Atal Nagar New Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Pin 492001.
3 - The Inspector General Of Police, Durg Range, Durg, Distt. Durg,
Chhattisgarh.
4 - The Superintendent Of Police, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh.
5 - The Superintendent Of Police, Surajpur, Distt. Surajpur,
Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate
For Respondents/ State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Govt. Advocate

2
(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)
Order on Board
15/10/2026
1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order
dated 01.10.2026 (Annexure P/1) as well as the transfer order
dated 20.08.2026 (Annexure P/5) and prays for a direction to the
respondent authorities to amend the impugned transfer order in
terms of the order passed in respect of a similarly situated
employee.
2. (a) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is working as a Police Inspector in the Police
Department, whereas his wife is serving as a Personal Assistant
in the Forest Department and is posted at Nava Raipur. He
submits that, vide transfer order dated 20.08.2026 (Annexure
P/5), the petitioner has been transferred from District
Rajnandgaon to District Surajpur, despite his wife's posting at
Nava Raipur. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner
submitted a representation seeking amendment of the transfer
order on the ground that both spouses are government servants
and that their posting at the same place or nearby stations would
facilitate the discharge of their family responsibilities. He would
place reliance upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of
this Court in Chetan Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh , WA No. 71 of
2021, decided on 08.03.2021.

3
(b) Learned counsel further submits that, in WPS No. 6557 of
2026, this Court, vide order dated 08.09.2026 (Annexure P/8),
directed the respondent authorities to consider and decide the
petitioner's representation in accordance with law. However, the
Police Establishment Board, vide order dated 01.10.2026
(Annexure P/1), rejected the petitioner's representation on the
ground that the transfer policy dated 05.06.2025 is not applicable
to the Home (Police) Department. Learned counsel contends that
the impugned order is arbitrary and discriminatory, particularly
when the transfer orders of similarly situated employees have
been amended by the respondent authorities (Annexure P/9
Colly.). He, therefore, prays that the impugned order dated
01.10.2026 and the transfer order dated 20.08.2026 be quashed
and the respondents be directed to reconsider the petitioner's
transfer and post him at the same place as his wife or at a nearby
station.
3. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the petition
and submits that transfer is an incidence of service and the
petitioner has no vested right to remain posted at a particular
place. It is further submitted that the transfer order has been
passed in the administrative interest and no illegality or statutory
violation warranting interference by this Court has been
demonstrated.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents available on record.

4
5. It is well settled that transfer is an incidence of service and an
employee has no vested right to remain posted at a particular
place. Ordinarily, the scope of judicial review in matters of transfer
is limited, and interference is warranted only when the transfer
order is shown to be contrary to any statutory provision, vitiated by
mala fides , or otherwise arbitrary. In the present case, the
petitioner has challenged the order dated 01.10.2026, whereby
the Police Establishment Board rejected his representation
seeking amendment of the transfer order dated 20.08.2026 on the
ground that his wife is posted at Nava Raipur and that both
spouses are government servants.
6. A perusal of the impugned order dated 01.10.2026 reveals that
the Police Establishment Board considered the petitioner's
representation and rejected the same on the ground that the
transfer policy dated 05.06.2025 is not applicable to the Home
(Police) Department. The petitioner has not demonstrated any
statutory provision or service rule conferring upon him an
enforceable right to be posted at the same place as his wife or at
a nearby station. Likewise, the fact that transfer orders of certain
other employees have allegedly been amended does not, in the
absence of particulars establishing that they were similarly
situated in all material respects, warrant interference with the
impugned order.
7. It is also relevant to note that, vide order dated 08.09.2026 passed
in WPS No. 6557 of 2026, this Court directed the respondent
authorities to consider and decide the petitioner's representation

5
in accordance with law. The Police Establishment Board thereafter
considered the petitioner's representation and passed the
impugned order dated 01.10.2026. In the absence of any material
demonstrating that the said order suffers from arbitrariness, mala
fides , or violation of any statutory provision, this Court finds no
sufficient ground to interfere with the administrative decision of the
competent authority in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that no ground
for interference with the impugned order dated 01.10.2026 or the
transfer order dated 20.08.2026 is made out.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be
and is hereby dismissed .
Sd/-

(BIBHU DATTA GURU)
JUDGE
$. Bhilwar