Rajesh Kumar Pandey vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that a transfer is an incident of service and an employee does not have a fundamental or vested right to claim a transfer or posting of their choice. Executive instructions and administrative directions concerning transfers do not confer an indefeasible right. The needs of the administration and the exigencies of service are paramount and individual convenience is subject to these overarching needs. The Court cited 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, which established that it is for the employer to transfer an employee considering the requirement, and employees cannot insist on or resist transfers at particular places. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments regarding the violation of the transfer policy or the circular. The interim application for relief was dismissed, and the writ petition was dismissed at the admission stage. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a representation before the respondent authorities.

Facts

The petitioner, Rajesh Kumar Pandey, a Constable in the Excise Department, challenged a transfer order dated June 23, 2022, issued by the State of Chhattisgarh. He was transferred from Bilaspur to Raigarh. The petitioner argued that he had been posted at Bilaspur for over three years and that the transfer violated the government's transfer policy. He contended that the policy limited transfers to a maximum of 10% of employees, but in this case, approximately 88% of the strength had been transferred. He also cited a circular dated May 27, 2020, emphasizing financial discipline and preferring transfers based on own expenditure. The petitioner relied on a coordinate bench's observation in a similar case (WPS No. 4480 of 2022) that individual petitions for interim relief would be considered.

Key Issues

1. Whether the transfer order dated June 23, 2022, issued by the State of Chhattisgarh, violates the government's transfer policy, specifically Clause 2.13, which allegedly limits transfers to 10% of employees? 2. Whether the transfer order violates the circular dated May 27, 2020, issued by the Finance Department, which directs financial discipline and preference for transfers on own expenditure? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the transfer order contravened the transfer policy by exceeding the 10% limit for transfers, citing that out of 384 employees, 229 had been transferred, amounting to 88% of the strength. He also highlighted the Finance Department's circular promoting financial discipline and transfers based on own expenditure. Furthermore, he referred to a coordinate bench's order suggesting that individual petitions for interim relief would be considered. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State counsel argued that a transfer policy does not confer any right upon an employee to remain at a particular place of posting for their entire service period.