Raman Lal Nemi vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that the transfer policy does not confer any 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 (supra) and Namrata Verma (supra), the Court reiterated that transfers are an incident of service governed by the exigencies of administration. Individual convenience is subordinate to the overarching needs of the administration. The Court found that the petitioner had remained in his present place of posting for over three years. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage, finding it devoid of merit. The application for interim relief was also dismissed. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to file a representation before the respondent authorities to raise his grievances.

Facts

The petitioner, Raman Lal Nemi, a Constable in the Excise Department, challenged a transfer order dated June 23, 2022, which moved him from Janjgir-Champa to Raigarh. He argued that his current posting exceeded three years and that the transfer violated the government's transfer policy. Specifically, he contended that the policy limited transfers to 10% of employees, but approximately 88% of constables (229 out of 258) had been transferred, exceeding the permissible limit. He also cited a Finance Department circular dated May 27, 2020, emphasizing financial discipline and preferring transfers based on own expenditure. A co-ordinate bench's observation in a similar case was also brought to the court's attention.

Key Issues

1. Whether the transfer order dated June 23, 2022, issued by the State of Chhattisgarh, is in violation of the government's transfer policy, specifically Clause 2.13 concerning the percentage of employees transferable, and the Finance Department circular dated May 27, 2020, regarding financial discipline and transfer preferences? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the transfer order violated the government's transfer policy by exceeding the 10% limit on employee transfers, as 229 out of 258 constables were transferred, amounting to 88%. He also relied on a Finance Department circular emphasizing financial discipline and preferring transfers based on own expenditure, suggesting the current transfer was not essential. The petitioner also pointed to a co-ordinate bench's observation in a prior case that individual petitions for interim relief would be considered. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State argued that a transfer policy does not confer any right upon an employee and that an employee cannot insist on remaining at a particular place of posting for their entire service period.