Transfer Cancellation Quashed: Chhattisgarh HC Holds Clause 1.6 Protection Requires Under One Year of Service, Not Fourteen Months

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ appeal by a Forest SDO whose transfer cancellation rested on a policy clause that only protects employees with under one year of service remaining — he had one year and four months left on the date of transfer.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, on 8 May 2026 dismissed a writ appeal filed by Uttam Prasad Paikra, a Forest Sub-Divisional Officer posted at Janakpur. The appeal challenged a Single Judge order that had quashed the State Government's cancellation of his transfer. The Division Bench found that the Committee constituted under the Transfer Policy had proceeded on a factually incorrect premise — that Paikra had less than one year of service remaining — when departmental records on file showed he had approximately one year and four months left. Clause 1.6 of the Transfer Policy dated 5 June 2025, which the Committee had invoked, applies only where an employee has under one year of service remaining. The bench held that the Single Judge had correctly appreciated this and declined to interfere.

The Transfer Orders and the Dispute Before the Single Judge

Paikra was substantively posted as SDO (Forest), Janakpur, in the Manendragarh Division of Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur district. By an order dated 30 June 2025, the State Government transferred him to the post of Deputy Managing Director, District Union, Manendragarh. Simultaneously, Laxmi Narayan Thakur — respondent No. 5 in the appeal — was transferred from the DFO Office, Manendragarh to Janakpur, Paikra's substantive post.

Paikra challenged his transfer in WPS No. 8040/2025, raising three grounds: he was on the verge of retirement; the transfer had been made only to accommodate Thakur in his home district, MCB District, in violation of Clause 9.19 of the General Book Circular; and the transferred post was already occupied by another employee. That writ petition was disposed of on 21 July 2025 with a direction to Paikra to submit a representation before the Committee of Senior Secretaries. A correction was carried out in MCC No. 751/2025 on 25 July 2025.

Paikra submitted a detailed representation on 30 July 2025 with supporting documents. The Committee, by its recommendation dated 19 August 2025, found substance in his grievance, citing his impending retirement, complications likely to arise in relation to retiral benefits, and the fact that another employee was already working at the transferred post. Acting on that recommendation, the State Government cancelled both transfer orders dated 30 June 2025 by an order dated 22 September 2025, restoring both officers to their original postings.

Thakur then filed WPS No. 11502/2025 before the Single Judge, challenging the recommendation of 19 August 2025 and the cancellation order of 22 September 2025. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the cancellation order, primarily on the ground that Clause 1.6 of the Transfer Policy was not attracted because Paikra had one year and four months of service remaining on the date of the transfer order, not less than one year. Paikra appealed that order in WA No. 366 of 2026.

The Legal Issue: What Clause 1.6 Actually Requires

Clause 1.6 of the Transfer Policy dated 5 June 2025 provides that government servants with less than one year of service remaining before superannuation are to be transferred only on their option, in accordance with General Administration Department guidelines, and otherwise are not to be transferred.

The departmental comments dated 12 August 2025, submitted by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and forming part of the record before the Committee, specifically recorded Paikra's date of birth as 19 October 1964 and his date of superannuation as 31 October 2026. On the date of the transfer order, 30 June 2025, Paikra therefore had approximately one year and four months of service remaining. The Committee's recommendation, however, proceeded on the basis that Clause 1.6 was attracted — a premise the Single Judge found to be factually incorrect.

Before the Division Bench, Paikra's counsel argued that the recommendation was not founded solely on Clause 1.6 but also on broader administrative and equitable considerations: the proximity of retirement, the risk of complications in retiral benefits, and the continued occupation of the transferred post by a contractual employee. Counsel also pressed the argument that Paikra had never been formally relieved from Janakpur in accordance with Clause 5.18.2 and the prescribed Form CGFC-3, and that Thakur had therefore not lawfully assumed charge.

The State counsel, appearing for respondents 1 to 4, took a different position from the State's earlier stand before the Committee. The State submitted before the Division Bench that Thakur had assumed charge at Janakpur on 4 July 2025, as reflected in communications from the DFO, Manendragarh, and that Paikra had remained absent after the transfer order. The State also contended that the departmental comments of 12 August 2025 from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest had specifically noted that Paikra had more than one year of service remaining and that Thakur's posting at Manendragarh would not amount to a home-district posting — points the Committee had not adequately addressed.

How the Division Bench Reasoned

The Division Bench agreed with the Single Judge on the central question. The bench observed that the dominant consideration which had weighed with the Committee was the applicability of Clause 1.6 of the Transfer Policy on the premise that Paikra was on the verge of retirement. That premise was factually incorrect on the face of the departmental record. With one year and four months of service remaining, Clause 1.6 — which requires less than one year — was simply not attracted.

The bench rejected the argument that ancillary considerations could save the cancellation order once its principal foundation had collapsed. As the bench put it: “Once the principal and foundational consideration which formed basis of the recommendation itself is found to be factually unsustainable, mere reference to ancillary considerations would not validate the consequential administrative decision cancelling the transfer orders.”

On the question of formal relieving and charge assumption, the Division Bench noted that affidavits had been filed before the Single Judge by two departmental authorities — the Chief Conservator of Forest, Sarguja Circle, Ambikapur, and the Divisional Forest Officer, Manendragarh — both stating that Thakur had assumed charge at Janakpur on 4 July 2025 and that Paikra had remained absent thereafter. The factum of charge assumption had also been noticed in the earlier round of litigation in MCC No. 751/2025. The bench held that Paikra's reliance on procedural requirements under Clause 5.18.2 and Form CGFC-3 was not sufficient to dislodge concurrent factual findings based on affidavits and departmental records.

The bench also addressed the home-district argument. Paikra had contended that Thakur's transfer to Janakpur violated Clause 9.19 of the General Book Circular, which prohibits transfer of an employee to his home district. The State authorities had clarified through the departmental comments of 12 August 2025 that after reorganisation and creation of new districts, Thakur's posting at Manendragarh would not amount to a home-district posting and that he was a resident of Korea District. The bench found no material demonstrating patent illegality or statutory violation and declined to take a different view.

The bench reiterated the settled position that transfer and posting are incidents of service and that an employee cannot claim continuance at a particular place as a matter of right unless the transfer is shown to be vitiated by mala fide or statutory violation. Thakur had no vested right to insist on continuance at Janakpur, but equally, Paikra could not claim that the cancellation of his transfer was valid when it rested on an erroneous reading of the policy.

The Intervener's Position

A contractual employee working at the post to which Paikra had been transferred — the Deputy Managing Director, District Union, Manendragarh — had been permitted to intervene. The intervener's counsel submitted that he had been continuously working pursuant to a valid contractual appointment with successive renewals granted by the competent authority until 31 October 2026, and that implementation of the Single Judge's order could result in his displacement. The intervener also pointed out that he had not been impleaded before the Single Judge despite being an affected party.

The Division Bench dismissed the intervention application as well, holding that the intervener's claim was purely consequential upon the success of the main appeal. Once the appeal itself stood dismissed, no independent adjudication survived in the intervener's favour.

Outcome

The Division Bench dismissed WA No. 366 of 2026 as devoid of merit. The order of the Single Judge dated 19 March 2026 in WPS No. 11502/2025, quashing the State Government's cancellation order dated 22 September 2025, was upheld. The transfer orders dated 30 June 2025 — transferring Paikra out of Janakpur and posting Thakur in his place — accordingly stand restored. No order as to costs was made. The intervention application was also rejected.