Imtiyaj Khan vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage. It held that 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. 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 establish that executive instructions and administrative directions concerning transfers do not confer an indefeasible right, and individual convenience is subject to the overarching needs of the administration. The employer has the discretion to transfer an employee 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, Imtiyaj Khan, a Constable in the Excise Department, challenged a transfer order dated June 24, 2022, issued by the State of Chhattisgarh. He was transferred from the office of the District Excise Officer, District Bemetara, to the office of the District Excise Officer, District Kabirdham. The petitioner argued that his 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, constituting approximately 88% of the total strength, which he claimed was a violation. He also cited a Finance Department circular dated May 27, 2020, emphasizing financial discipline and preference for transfers based on own expenditure. The petitioner also referred to a coordinate bench's order in a similar case, suggesting that individual grievances should be considered.

Key Issues

1. Whether the transfer order dated June 24, 2022, issued by the State of Chhattisgarh, is in violation of the government's transfer policy, specifically Clause 2.13, which allegedly limits transfers to 10% of employees? Petitioner's Arguments: - The transfer violates the government's transfer policy as it exceeds the 10% limit, with approximately 88% of employees being transferred. - A Finance Department circular dated May 27, 2020, mandates financial discipline and preference for transfers based on own expenditure, which the current transfer allegedly disregards. - A coordinate bench's order in WPS No. 4480 of 2022 (Rajendra Dave Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) indicated that individual grievances regarding transfers should be considered. Revenue/State's Arguments: - The transfer policy does not confer any right upon an employee to remain posted at a particular place for their entire service period. - An employee cannot insist on staying at a specific posting location.