Facts
The petitioner, a Sub-Engineer posted at the Project Implementation Unit, Mohla-Manpur, challenged the order dated 1 October 2026 transferring him to the Project Implementation Unit, Kondagaon.
Source reference: para. 1He contended that the transfer breached the transfer policies dated 3 June 2015 and 5 June 2025, including provisions concerning service in Scheduled Areas and posting of spouses at the same place; he had submitted a representation dated 5 October 2026 under Clause 8 of the 2025 Policy.
Source reference: para. 2The State disputed the claimed restrictions and submitted that the transfer was made on administrative grounds, while accepting that the representation was for the authorities to consider under Clause 8.
Source reference: para. 3Issues
1. Whether the petitioner’s transfer should be quashed as contrary to the transfer policies dated 3 June 2015 and 5 June 2025.
Source reference: paras. 2–32. Whether the petitioner’s representation should be considered by the authorities under Clause 8 of the 5 June 2025 Policy before the Court determines the transfer challenge.
Source reference: paras. 5–7Law Applied
The Court applied Clause 8 of the Transfer Policy dated 5 June 2025, which provides an in-house mechanism for considering an employee’s grievance against a transfer alleged to violate the policy.
Source reference: para. 5The clause contemplates submission of a reasoned representation, with a copy of the transfer order, within 15 days of the order, for consideration through the prescribed committee mechanism.
Source reference: para. 5Reasoning
Because the petitioner had already submitted a representation under Clause 8, and that representation remained to be considered by the competent authorities, the Court declined to adjudicate the transfer’s legality at that stage.
Source reference: para. 6It instead directed the authorities to assess the grievance objectively and issue a reasoned decision within the period prescribed by Clause 8, in accordance with law and on the merits.
Source reference: para. 7Holding
The Court did not rule on whether the transfer violated either policy or grant the requested relief of quashing the transfer.
It disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent authorities to decide the petitioner’s representation objectively, by a reasoned order, within the time prescribed under Clause 8 of the 5 June 2025 Policy.
Source reference: paras. 6–8Original Court PDF
PRANAV KHANDEKARvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
