Facts
The petitioner, a Joint Collector posted at Balodabazar-Bhatapara, challenged an order dated 29 September 2026 transferring him to Bastar.
Source reference: para. 1He 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, 6Issues
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. 5–6Whether the authorities should be directed to decide that representation in accordance with the Transfer Policy
Source reference: paras. 5–7Law 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. 5the committee considers the matter in light of the Policy and forwards its recommendation to the concerned department
Source reference: para. 5Reasoning
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. 6–7It 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. 6–7Holding
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. 7–8Original Court PDF
ARUN KUMAR SONKARvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
