Reaffirming the established principle that government employees cannot insist on remaining at one posting on personal grounds, including pregnancy, unless orders are shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, or contrary to statutory rules; upholds precedent and confirms limited scope of judicial review in transfer matters for public sector/state service employees. Binding on subordinate courts within Chhattisgarh; persuasive for others.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WA/776/2025 of SMT. DEEPIKA KURREY Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010426742025 |
| Date of Registration | 28-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Division Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Chhattisgarh, persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent including SK Naushad Rahaman & Ors v. Union of India & Ors., 2020 (12) SCC 1 |
| Type of Law | Service Law, Constitutional Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court reaffirmed that transfer is an incidence of service, and government employees have no vested right to remain posted at a particular place. Judicial review is limited and only permissible if the transfer order is shown to be vitiated by mala fides, arbitrariness, or is contrary to statutory rules or policies. No material was found to demonstrate arbitrariness or mala fide in the present case. Personal circumstances like pregnancy or ill-health of family members, though sympathetic, do not by themselves override administrative exigency unless illegalities are proved. The prior precedents including SK Naushad Rahaman were relied upon and applied. The transfer policy suggesting a minimum tenure at one place does not grant an absolute right. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | SK Naushad Rahaman & Ors v. Union of India & Ors., 2020 (12) SCC 1 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Principle that transfer is an incidence of service; ratio from Supreme Court decision in SK Naushad Rahaman. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The appellant (Assistant Engineer) was transferred three times within one year and challenged her latest transfer order on grounds of frequent transfers, pregnancy, and hardship. She invoked relevant State transfer policies and constitutional provisions, alleging arbitrariness and breach of minimum tenure norms. The Single Judge dismissed her writ petition, and this decision was challenged in appeal. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows | SK Naushad Rahaman & Ors v. Union of India & Ors., 2020 (12) SCC 1 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms the principle that transfer is an incidence of service and cannot be challenged on personal inconvenience unless mala fide or illegality is demonstrated.
- Pregnancy and personal hardship, while deserving sympathy, do not automatically vitiate transfer orders.
- The State’s transfer policy stipulating minimum tenure does not confer an absolute right to remain at one posting.
- The scope of judicial review in transfer matters remains narrow, focusing only on statutory violation, mala fide or colorable exercise of power.
- Lawyers contesting transfers must show cogent material establishing arbitrariness/mala fide or breach of statutory policy, not mere hardship.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Division Bench reviewed the appellant’s arguments regarding frequent transfers, hardship due to pregnancy, alleged violation of transfer policy/circulars, and possible arbitrariness.
- It referred to the Supreme Court’s ratio in SK Naushad Rahaman & Ors v. Union of India & Ors., restating that transfer is an exigency of service and no employee may claim entitlement to remain at a single post or location.
- The court examined the facts: though transfers were frequent, there was no evidence on record of arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of statutory rules by the respondent authorities.
- The court found that only a colorable, arbitrary, or mala fide transfer order is subject to judicial review; personal circumstances, unless amounting to clear injustice or illegality, do not suffice.
- Dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge was found free from illegality or jurisdictional defect.
- Liberty was left to the appellant to pursue pending representations before the appropriate authorities.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Action of respondent authorities is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution.
- The Single Judge erred by upholding transfer on grounds of “administrative exigency” without supporting material.
- Frequent transfers within a short span (less than one year) violate State transfer policies and indicate mala fide intent.
- The appellant’s personal circumstances—pregnancy and minor child’s ill-health—warrant sympathetic consideration.
- The transfer is punitive in nature, disguised as administrative, and results in grave hardship.
- The Single Judge misapplied SK Noshad Rahaman, failing to recognize judicial review is available for arbitrary or illegal transfers.
- The transfer violates circulars mandating a minimum tenure at one posting.
Respondents:
- The impugned order is justified and the petition was rightly dismissed.
- The Single Judge considered all relevant aspects, and no interference is warranted by the appellate court.
Factual Background
The appellant, an Assistant Engineer in the state power distribution company, was subjected to three transfers within approximately one year. Her latest transfer order in June 2025 required her to travel across Bilaspur, Pendra, and Mungeli divisions, which she alleged would cause hardship owing to her pregnancy and her minor child’s ill-health. Invoking State circulars prescribing minimum tenure and constitutional protections, she filed a writ petition, dismissed by the Single Judge. The current writ appeal challenges that dismissal.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment examined Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution in the context of service transfers.
- Considered relevant State Government transfer policy circulars prescribing minimum tenure of three years at a posting.
- The Supreme Court’s interpretation of service rules vis-à-vis administrative transfers was applied.
- No “reading down” or expansive interpretation noted—ratio followed as per prior Supreme Court precedent.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
Both judges on the Division Bench concurred; no dissenting or alternative view expressed.
Procedural Innovations
- Liberty granted to the appellant to pursue her representation already pending before authorities.
- No new procedural precedent or guideline issued.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms existing Supreme Court and High Court law.