Policy Protecting Near-Retirement Employees Doesn't Apply If Over 1 Year Of Service Remains: Chhattisgarh High Court

A Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that Clause 1.6 of the Transfer Policy (protecting employees with less than one year of service from transfer) does not apply when the employee has more than one year of service remaining before retirement.

Background Facts

The appellant was working as a Forest Sub-Divisional Officer at Janakpur. He was due to retire in the year 2026. He was transferred to the post of Deputy Managing Director at District Union in June 2025. Another officer was transferred to his place of posting. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court. It was argued that he was on the verge of retirement. Further, the transfer order was passed only to accommodate the other officer in his home district. It was directed by the court to the appellant to submit a representation before a Committee of Senior Secretaries.

Therefore, the appellant submitted a detailed representation. The Committee found substance in his grievance. Consequently, the department cancelled both the transfer orders and restored the parties to their original places of posting. However, the other officer challenged this cancellation order before a Single Judge, who allowed his petition and quashed the cancellation order.

Aggrieved by that decision, the appellant filed the appeal before the Division Bench.

It was argued by the appellant that he was on sanctioned medical leave only from 4th July 2025 till 3rd August 2025, and thereafter he joined duties on 4th August 2025. It was further contended that he continuously worked at his place of posting and was never lawfully relieved in accordance with the prescribed departmental format.

It was further argued that the other officer was a resident of the same district, and his posting at his home district was in clear violation of the General Book Circular which prohibits transfer of an employee to his home district.

The appellant also contended that the Committee's recommendation was based on overall administrative and equitable considerations. Further, his retiral proceedings had already commenced and a mid-term transfer at such a stage would seriously prejudice his retiral benefits.

On the other hand, it was argued by the respondent that under the transfer order dated 30th June 2025, the transferred employees were required to join within ten days, failing which they were to be deemed relieved automatically. It was submitted that the other officer assumed charge at Janakpur whereas the appellant remained absent after issuance of the transfer order.

It was further argued by the State counsel that the Transfer Committee ignored the departmental comments submitted by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, wherein it was mentioned that the appellant had more than one year of service remaining on the date of transfer, and that the respondent's posting at Manendragarh would not amount to posting in his home district. Therefore, the recommendation of the Committee and the consequential cancellation order were unsustainable.

Findings and observations of the Court

It was observed by the Division Bench that the Clause 1.6 of the Transfer Policy would be relied upon as the appellant was on the verge of retirement. However, it was noted that the departmental comments submitted by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest mentioned the appellant's date of birth as 19th October 1964 and his date of superannuation as 31st October 2026. Therefore, on the date of issuance of the transfer order, the appellant had about 1 year and 4 months of service remaining.

It was further observed that Clause 1.6 of the Transfer Policy provides protection only in cases where an employee is left with less than one year of service. It was held by the Division Bench that Clause 1.6 of the Transfer Policy was not applicable to the appellant.

It was further observed that transfer and posting are incidents of service, and unless shown to be vitiated by mala fide or statutory violation, an employee cannot claim continuance at a particular place as a matter of right.

With the aforesaid observations, the order of the Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench. Consequently, the writ appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Uttam Prasad Paikra v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others

Case No. : WA No. 366 of 2026

Counsel for the Appellant : Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents : Praveen Das, Addl. Advocate General, Manoj Paranje, Senior Advocate along with Shashwat Mishra, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order