The High Court answered that the transfer policy—specifically, provisions allowing spouses to be posted together—does not grant an enforceable right to government servants to dictate their posting; transfer remains an incident of service. The judgment aligns with existing Supreme Court precedent, reaffirming the limited scope of judicial intervention in transfer orders concerning government employees in Chhattisgarh’s public sector.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPS/12187/2025 of RATNESH BHADORIYA Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010439192025 |
| Date of Registration | 15-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 16-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Chhattisgarh High Court jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedent (SK Nausad Rahaman & Ors v. Union of India & Ors, (2022) 12 SCC 1) |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether the transfer policy confers a legal right on government employees (especially spouses) to demand a particular posting. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon | SK Nausad Rahaman & Others Vs. Union of India & Others [(2022) 12 SCC 1] |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon | Transfer is an administrative function; policies do not create enforceable rights; judicial review is limited to exceptional circumstances (malafide, illegality). |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner, a Patwari, was transferred after two years from Durg to Patan within the same district. Petitioner alleged the transfer was mala fide and in violation of the transfer policy, as his wife worked in Durg. Respondent countered that transfer is based on administrative necessity and not a right. The Court found no violation of policy or evidence of mala fide. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Chhattisgarh High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and potentially the Supreme Court on similar service law questions |
| Follows | SK Nausad Rahaman & Ors v. Union of India & Ors, (2022) 12 SCC 1 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that transfer policy provisions regarding posting of spouses do not confer a legally enforceable right.
- Confirms that administrative transfer orders are only subject to limited judicial review.
- Application of Supreme Court’s ruling in SK Nausad Rahaman to state-level service matters.
- Lawyers challenging transfer orders based on policy provisions must demonstrate more than mere policy violation.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court recognized the core issue: whether the transfer order violated the policy regarding joint postings for spouses in government service.
- The Court considered that under the transfer order, the petitioner was moved within the same district after a reasonable tenure.
- The judgment cited the Supreme Court’s decision in SK Nausad Rahaman & Others v. Union of India & Others, emphasizing that transfer is an incident of service, and government employees have no legal right to insist on a particular posting.
- The policy provisions regarding spouse postings were interpreted as directory, not mandatory.
- Judicial interference is only permissible if there is illegality, malafide, or violation of statutory rules, none of which were proven on the facts.
- The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as no grounds for interference were established.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Respondent No. 5 was given additional charge as Patwari, implying malafide intent in petitioner’s transfer.
- Petitioner’s wife works at Durg; transfer violates Clause 3.13 of the transfer policy requiring spouses to be posted together.
- Sought setting aside of transfer and charge order.
Respondent (State):
- Transfer is an exigency of service; no government servant can claim a right to be posted at a particular place indefinitely.
- Prayer for dismissal of the writ petition due to lack of legal right.
Factual Background
The petitioner was working as a Patwari in Durg district, Chhattisgarh, and was transferred to Tahsil Patan within the same district after serving two years at the current posting. Alongside the transfer, Respondent No. 5 was granted additional charge of the petitioner’s earlier post. The petitioner challenged the transfer, arguing it violated the transfer policy, citing that his spouse was also employed in Durg. The respondent authorities defended the transfer as an administrative matter consistent with government rules.
Statutory Analysis
- The court discussed Clause 3.13 of the Chhattisgarh government transfer policy, which allows for joint postings of spouses in government service.
- The provision was interpreted as directory, not conferring an enforceable right to a specific posting.
- Main reliance placed on principles developed under service jurisprudence and Supreme Court authority, clarifying the transfer power as an administrative function.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The High Court followed established Supreme Court precedent regarding service transfers.