Nelson Lovett vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage, holding that a transfer policy does not confer an indefeasible right upon a government employee to claim a transfer or posting of their choice. Relying 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, the Court reiterated that transfers are an incident of service governed by the exigencies of service and the needs of the administration. Individual convenience is subordinate to administrative requirements. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's contention that the transfer policy created a vested right. 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, Nelson Lovett, a Constable in the Excise Department, challenged his transfer order dated June 24, 2022, issued by the State Government. He had been posted at the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Excise Flying Squad Division, Bilaspur, 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, whereas approximately 88% of constables had been transferred. He also cited a Finance Department circular dated May 27, 2020, emphasizing financial discipline and preferring transfers based on own expenditure. The petitioner relied on a coordinate bench's order in a similar case, suggesting that individual grievances regarding interim relief could be considered. The State contended that the transfer policy does not grant employees a right to remain at a particular posting.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned transfer order dated June 24, 2022, issued by the State Government, violates the Chhattisgarh Government's transfer policy, specifically Clause 2.13 concerning the maximum percentage of employees transferable, and the Finance Department circular dated May 27, 2020, regarding financial discipline and preference for transfers on own expenditure? (Question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of the transfer policy and circulars). Petitioner's Arguments: - The transfer violates the transfer policy's 10% limit, as 88% of constables have been transferred. - The transfer contravenes the Finance Department circular emphasizing financial discipline and transfers on own expenditure. - A coordinate bench has indicated that such grievances can be considered for interim relief. Revenue/State's Arguments: - The transfer policy does not confer any right upon an employee to remain at a particular place of posting.