The High Court held that a government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a particular location, reaffirming the established principle that transfer is an incident of service. The judgment upholds prevailing legal position and is binding precedent for future cases in service law across Chhattisgarh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPS/12536/2025 of SMT. RITA SINGH Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010465522025 |
| Date of Registration | 31-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 03-11-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction (Chhattisgarh High Court & Subordinate Courts) |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms established law regarding transfer as incident of service |
| Type of Law | Service Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether a government employee can challenge a transfer order on grounds of personal inconvenience, and insist on continuing at the current posting? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
It is a settled position of law that a government employee cannot insist to remain posted at a particular place for ever. Transfer is an incident of service and does not adversely affect the petitioner’s rights. The Court found no irregularity or illegality in the transfer order. The writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner challenged her transfer order citing personal and family medical reasons. The respondent argued transfer is an incident of service and does not confer the right to remain at one posting indefinitely. The petitioner had already served at her current posting for more than 14 years. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities within Chhattisgarh High Court jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts facing similar service law questions |
| Follows | Affirms settled doctrine that transfer is an incident of service |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that no government servant has a right to remain posted at a particular place indefinitely.
- Individual or personal hardships (medical or family) do not, by themselves, entitle an employee to challenge a transfer order.
- Petitions challenging transfer orders are unlikely to succeed unless clear evidence of illegality or mala fide is shown.
- Lawyers should advise clients that long tenure at a single posting strengthens the case for routine transfer.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the petitioner’s grounds—namely, medical hardship due to asthma and her husband’s fractured leg.
- The respondent argued that transfer is an incident of service and government employees cannot claim a right to a particular posting.
- The Court noted that the petitioner had been at her current post for over 14 years, thus a routine transfer was justified.
- Citing settled legal position, the Court found no irregularity or illegality in the transfer or rejection of representation.
- The writ petition was therefore dismissed as lacking merit.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought to set aside the transfer order due to personal difficulties: suffering from Asthma and husband’s fractured leg.
Respondent (State)
- Asserted transfer is an incident of service.
- Argued that a government employee cannot insist to remain posted at a particular place indefinitely.
- Sought dismissal of the writ petition.
Factual Background
The petitioner, employed as a Trainer in the Department of Women and Child Development at Rajpur, had been posted at her workplace since 2011, amounting to a tenure of more than 14 years. On 25.06.2025, she was transferred, and her subsequent representation challenging the order was rejected on 06.10.2025. The writ petition was filed citing personal health reasons (Asthma) and her husband’s medical condition (fractured leg).
Statutory Analysis
The judgment reaffirmed the established principle of service jurisprudence that “transfer is an incident of service,” but did not specify or interpret any particular statutory provision.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms existing law that transfer is an incident of service.