Employees retiring within one year must be considered for posting in their home district.

The petitioner, an Excise Head Constable, was initially appointed as a Salesman in 1993, later regularised as an Excise Constable, and was posted at Korba and thereafter Bilaspur. He was transferred from Bilaspur to Raigarh in June 2022 and continued there after his promotion as Excise Head Constable in August 2023.

The petitioner submitted repeated representations seeking transfer to Bilaspur, his home district, citing his wife’s medical condition, his own age and medical circumstances, family considerations, and his impending superannuation in July 2027.

In an earlier writ petition, WPS No. 13123 of 2025, the High Court directed the respondents to consider and decide his representations in accordance with law. The petitioner thereafter submitted further representations dated 27 January 2026 and 21 May 2026, but no decision was taken.

The State contended that Clause 3.12 of the Transfer Policy, 2025 was inapplicable because the policy excluded the Excise Department, and that posting was within the administrative discretion of the competent authority.

Whether the petitioner, who was due to retire within one year, could claim consideration for posting in his home district under Clause 3.12 of the Transfer Policy, 2025, notwithstanding the State’s contention that the policy excluded the Excise Department.

Whether the competent authority could be directed to pass a posting order transferring the petitioner from Raigarh to Bilaspur in view of his impending retirement and repeated unresolved representations.

The Court applied the principle that transfer and posting ordinarily lie within the administrative domain of the competent authority and that an employee has no vested right to be posted at a place of personal choice.

However, it also relied on Clause 3.12 of the Transfer Policy, 2025, under which employees retiring within one year may be considered for posting at a place of their choice or in their home district.

The Court further applied the principle that similarly situated government employees should receive equal consideration where the benefit of such retirement-related posting has been extended to employees in various departments.

The Court also took note of its earlier direction in WPS No. 13123 of 2025 requiring consideration and disposal of the petitioner’s representations.

The Court accepted that the petitioner was serving as an Excise Head Constable at Raigarh and was due to retire in July 2027, i.e., within one year.

Although the State argued that the Transfer Policy did not apply to the Excise Department, the Court held that this objection was unsustainable because the benefit of posting at a preferred place or home district had been extended to employees of various departments who were retiring within one year.

Considering the petitioner’s impending retirement, his repeated representations, and the failure of the authorities to provide effective redress despite the earlier judicial direction, the Court found it appropriate to require the competent authority to arrange his posting in Bilaspur.

The Court therefore treated the retirement-related benefit as applicable to the petitioner notwithstanding the State’s objection based on departmental exclusion.

The competent respondent authority was directed to consider the petitioner’s case and pass the necessary posting order transferring him to Bilaspur, his home district, within a fortnight from receipt of the Court’s order.

The Court thus granted the petitioner relief to the extent of directing his posting at Bilaspur in view of his retirement within one year.