Lekhram Deshmukh vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage, holding that transfer is an incident of service and an employee does not have a vested right to claim a posting of their choice. The Court relied on Supreme Court judgments in S.K. Nausad Rahaman and others vs. Union of India and others, and Namrata Verma vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others. These judgments established that executive instructions and administrative directions concerning transfers do not confer an indefeasible right, and individual convenience is subordinate to administrative needs. The Court found that the petitioner had remained in his present posting for over three years, and it was not for the employee to insist on or resist a transfer; such decisions rest with the employer based on requirements. Consequently, the interim relief application was also dismissed. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to file a representation before the respondent authorities to raise his grievances.

Facts

The petitioner, Lekhram Deshmukh, a Head Constable in the Excise Department, challenged his transfer order dated June 28, 2022. He had been posted at the District Excise Officer, Mahasamund for over three years. The petitioner argued that the transfer violated the government's transfer policy, which limits transfers to a maximum of 10% of employees. He contended that out of 384 employees, 229 had been transferred, representing approximately 88% of the strength, which he claimed was a violation. He also cited a Finance Department circular dated May 27, 2020, emphasizing financial discipline and preferring transfers based on own expenditure. The State argued that a transfer policy does not confer a right upon an employee to remain at a particular posting.

Key Issues

1. Whether the transfer order dated June 28, 2022, issued by the State of Chhattisgarh, violates the government's transfer policy by exceeding the permissible limit of 10% employee transfers, thereby infringing upon the petitioner's rights? 2. Whether the circular dated May 27, 2020, issued by the Finance Department, mandating financial discipline and preference for transfers on own expenditure, renders the impugned transfer order arbitrary and unsustainable? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the transfer violated Clause 2.13 of the transfer policy, which stipulates a maximum of 10% employee transfers. He asserted that the transfer of 229 out of 384 employees (approximately 88%) constituted a significant breach of this policy. Furthermore, he relied on the Finance Department's circular dated May 27, 2020, which advised against unnecessary transfers to maintain financial discipline and prioritize transfers on own expenditure. He also referred to a coordinate bench's order in WPS No. 4480 of 2022, suggesting that individual grievances regarding transfers could be considered. State's Arguments: The State contended that a transfer policy does not grant an employee an indefeasible right to remain at a particular place of posting for their entire service period.