Sumit Sharma vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that a transfer policy does not confer any indefeasible right upon a government employee to claim a transfer or 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 transfers are an incident of service, governed by exigencies, and individual convenience is subordinate to administrative needs. The Court found that the petitioner had remained at his present posting for over three years. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to grant interim relief. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, was dismissed at the admission stage, and 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, Sumit Sharma, a Constable in the Excise Department, challenged his transfer order dated June 28, 2022, issued by the Under Secretary, Department of Commercial Tax (Excise), State of Chhattisgarh. He was transferred from the office of Deputy Commissioner Excise, District Raipur, to the office of District Excise Officer, District Balod. The petitioner argued that his transfer violated the government's transfer policy, which limits transfers to 10% of employees, as approximately 88% of the constables had been transferred. He also cited a Finance Department circular dated May 27, 2020, emphasizing financial discipline and preferring transfers only when absolutely necessary. The petitioner further referred to a coordinate bench's observation in a similar case, suggesting individual petitions for interim relief would be considered.

Key Issues

1. Whether the transfer order dated June 28, 2022, issued by the Under Secretary, Department of Commercial Tax (Excise), State of Chhattisgarh, is violative of the government's transfer policy and the circular dated May 27, 2020, thereby warranting interim relief? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the transfer order contravened the government's transfer policy by exceeding the permissible 10% limit for employee transfers, citing that 229 out of 384 employees were transferred. He also argued that a Finance Department circular dated May 27, 2020, mandated financial discipline and limited transfers to essential cases, with a preference for transfers based on own expenditure. Reliance was placed on a coordinate bench's order in WPS No. 4480 of 2022, which indicated 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.