Chhattisgarh High Court
Employment and Labour LawAdministrative and Public Law

Pending transfer-policy representations must be decided on merits within the prescribed period.

ARUN KUMAR SONKAR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Chhattisgarh High CourtJUDGMENT: October 09, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Pending transfer-policy representations must be decided on merits within the prescribed period.. ARUN KUMAR SONKAR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH. Chhattisgarh High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner, a Joint Collector posted at Balodabazar-Bhatapara, challenged an order dated 29 September 2026 transferring him to Bastar.

Source reference: para. 1

He contended that the transfer violated the Transfer Policy dated 5 June 2025, including because he had already served about 12 years in Scheduled Areas, had not completed the prescribed tenure at his current posting, and faced medical and family circumstances warranting consideration. He had submitted a representation against the transfer on 30 September 2026. The State submitted that the transfer was made for administrative exigency and that the representation should be considered under the Policy.

Source reference: paras. 1–3, 6
02

Issues

Whether the Court should entertain the challenge to the transfer order when the petitioner’s representation under the Transfer Policy remained pending

Source reference: paras. 5–6

Whether the authorities should be directed to decide that representation in accordance with the Transfer Policy

Source reference: paras. 5–7
03

Law Applied

Clause 8 of the Transfer Policy dated 5 June 2025 provides an in-house mechanism for an employee aggrieved by a transfer on grounds of violation of the Policy to submit a representation, with the transfer order, to the designated committee within 15 days of the order;

Source reference: para. 5

the committee considers the matter in light of the Policy and forwards its recommendation to the concerned department

Source reference: para. 5
04

Reasoning

The petitioner had already invoked the Policy’s representation mechanism. Because the competent authorities were required to consider that representation under Clause 8, the Court declined to examine the transfer challenge at that stage.

Source reference: paras. 6–7

It instead required the authorities to assess the petitioner’s grievance objectively and issue a reasoned decision, without deciding the merits of his claims concerning tenure, Scheduled Area service, medical circumstances, or administrative exigency

Source reference: paras. 6–7
05

Holding

The petition was disposed of without setting aside the transfer order.

The respondent authorities were directed to decide the petitioner’s representation objectively, by a reasoned order, within the period prescribed under Clause 8 of the Transfer Policy and in accordance with law and on its own merits

Source reference: paras. 7–8
Chhattisgarh High Court

Original Court PDF

ARUN KUMAR SONKARvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Chhattisgarh High Court · October 09, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment