Transfer shield applies only within final yr of service: HC

The Chhattisgarh high court has ruled that Clause 1.6 of the Transfer Policy, which shields employees nearing retirement from transfer, is inapplicable where the employee has more than one year of service remaining before retirement. The high court has refused to interfere with a single-judge order that restored a June 2025 transfer of a forest sub-divisional officer, holding that the state’s subsequent cancellation of the transfer was founded on a factually incorrect premise under the State’s transfer policy.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, in its May 8, 2026 order in writ appeal, dismissed the appeal filed by Uttam Prasad Paikra, a forest SDO, who had challenged the March 19, 2026 decision allowing the writ petition of Laxmi Narayan Thakur.

The dispute arose from a June 30, 2025 transfer order shifting Paikra from SDO (Forest), Janakpur to Deputy Managing Director, District Union, Manendragarh, while Thakur was moved to Janakpur. After Paikra approached the High Court, the matter was directed to the Senior Secretaries Committee under the transfer policy. The Committee recommended cancellation, and on September 22, 2025 the department cancelled both transfers, restoring both officers to their earlier postings. Thakur then challenged the cancellation and succeeded before the single judge, prompting Paikra’s appeal.

The Division Bench’s central observation was that the Committee and the State had treated Clause 1.6 of the June 5, 2025 transfer policy as applicable on the assumption that Paikra was within “less than one year” of retirement, warranting protection from transfer. The Bench noted that departmental comments dated August 12, 2025 recorded Paikra’s date of birth as October 19, 1964 and superannuation as October 31, 2026, meaning that on the transfer date of June 30, 2025 he had about one year and four months of service remaining. On that admitted timeline, the court held Clause 1.6 was not attracted, and the foundational basis for cancelling the transfer was “factually incorrect.”

Rejecting the argument that other considerations could sustain the cancellation, the Bench held that once the “principal and foundational consideration” behind the recommendation was unsustainable, “mere reference to ancillary considerations” such as impending retirement-related complications or the claim that the transferred post was occupied by a contractual employee could not validate the cancellation decision.

Reiterating settled service law principles, the court observed that transfer and posting are incidents of service and an employee cannot claim a right to remain at a particular place unless mala fides or statutory violation is shown. It found no error in the single judge’s interference with the September 22, 2025 cancellation order because it was based on an erroneous assumption about Clause 1.6.

On the controversy over who had assumed charge at Janakpur, the Bench relied on affidavits filed by departmental authorities, including the Chief Conservator of Forest and the Divisional Forest Officer, stating that Thakur had assumed charge on July 4, 2025 and that Paikra remained absent thereafter. The court noted that the fact of assumption of charge had also been noticed in earlier proceedings connected with Paikra’s first writ petition and a subsequent miscellaneous case. It held that Paikra’s objections about formal relieving procedures and prescribed formats were insufficient to dislodge the factual position recorded on the basis of departmental records and affidavits.

The Bench also addressed Paikra’s allegation that Thakur’s posting at Janakpur violated Clause 9.19 of the General Book Circular barring posting in an employee’s home district. It recorded the State’s clarification that, after district reorganisation, posting Thakur at Manendragarh would not amount to posting in his home district, and that he was a resident of Korea district. The court found no material showing patent illegality or statutory breach on that count.

An intervention application by a contractual employee claiming he occupied the post in question was rejected as consequential, with the court holding no independent adjudication survived once the appeal failed.

The writ appeal was dismissed, leaving intact the single-judge order quashing the State’s September 22, 2025 cancellation and effectively restoring the June 30, 2025 transfer arrangement.