Chattisgarh High Court
Arun Kumar Ajgale vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 July, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:35080
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 7511 of 2025
1 - Arun Kumar Ajgale S/o Late Shri Ratiram Ajgale Aged About 52 Years
Occupation Assistant Grade-I At The Office Of Deputy Registrar, Co-
Operative Societies Jashpur R/o- Rambhatha Thathari, Police Station
Baradwar, Tahsil- Jaijaipur, District Sakti (C.G.) Mo. No. 9827923842
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Co-Operative
Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur
(C.G.)
2 - Under Secretary Department Of Co-Operative Mahanadi Bhawan, New
Mantralaya Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa
Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.)
4 - Assistant Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Tahsil Complex First Floor,
Infront Of District And Session Court Raigarh Road, Jashpur, Tahsil And
District Jashpur (C.G.)
5 - Assistant Registrar Co-Operative Societies Manendragarh, District-
Manendragarh- Chirmiri- Bharatpur (C.G.)
---- Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Panel Lawyer
VEDPRAKASH
DEWANGAN
Digitally signed by
VEDPRAKASH
DEWANGAN
Date: 2025.07.24
19:02:27 +0530
2
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Order on Board
22/07/2025
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned
transfer order dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby the
petitioner, who is an Assistant Grade-2, has been transferred from the
office of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jashpur to the
office of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Manendragarh-
Chirmiri-Bharatpur.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is
presently posted as Assistant Grade-2 and is posted at the office of
Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jashpur. On 12.06.2025,
he made his application for transfer from Jashpur district to any other
district at Sakti, Sarangarh, Janjgir-Champa or Raigarh on his own
request. Instead of transferring him to the aforesaid districts, he has
been transferred to Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur district. He
would further submit that the petitioner is working as Assistant Grade-2
and he is the district cadre employee, but he has been transferred to
another district, by which his seniority may be affected. The transfer of
the petitioner is in violation of clause 3.14 of the transfer policy dated
05.06.2025. He would also submit that the petitioner has moved his
representation on 09.07.2025 to the authorities concerned, but the
same has not been considered till date. During pendency of the
present writ petition, the petitioner has joined at his transferred place
of posting. Since, the transfer of the petitioner is against the transfer
3
policy dated 05.06.2025, he is challenging the same.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on
instructions, would submit that from the document annexed with the
petition, it transpires that the services of the petitioner are not of
district cadre, but it was the state cadre. By the order dated
07.09.1999, the appointment of the petitioner was made by the
Commissioner, Cooperative and Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal including others on the post of Assistant
Grade-3 in the whole of Madhya Pradesh State, as the then was.
Even, the petitioner has moved his application on 12.06.2025,
requesting his transfer to the other districts i.e. Sakti, Sarangarh,
Janjgir-Champa and Raigarh, which itself shows that his post is not of
district cadre. Since the petitioner has already joined at his transferred
place in compliance of the transfer order dated 30.06.2025, the same
has been complied with and cannot be revoked.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents annexed with the petition.
5. From the document annexed with the petition (Annexure P/2) and his
application for transfer (Annexure P/3), it transpires that the post of the
petitioner is the district cadre post. The petitioner could not
demonstrate from any rule or setup of the department that his post is
district cadre and he cannot be transferred to another district. In the
application made by the petitioner himself for his transfer, he himself
given option to be transferred to other districts, therefore, this Court is
4
not impressed upon the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the post of the petitioner is the district cadre post
leaving this issue open for its consideration in appropriate proceeding.
Further, in compliance of the order dated 30.06.2025, as per the
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner
has joined at his transferred place of posting.
6. In the matter of “U.P. Singh vs. Punjab National Bank” reported in
2023 INSC 1077, in para 10 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:
“10. A person aggrieved by the order of transfer
cannot sit at home and decide on his own that the
order is illegal or erroneous and he will not comply
with the same. If the workman had any grievance,
he could have availed of his remedy available
against the same; otherwise, he was duty-bound to
comply with the same. Failure to avail of any
remedy also would mean that he had accepted the
order and was duty-bound to comply with the same.
At a later stage, he could 4 not take a plea that the
order being erroneous, no consequence would
follow for its non-compliance.”
7. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the matter of “Tarun
Kanungo vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others” order dated
15.05.2015 passed in WA No. 248/2015 has held in para 3 that:
“The question for cancellation of an order not in
existence does not arise. The only option available
to the authorities was to issue any fresh orders. We
may appropriately refer to two Bench decisions in
2000 (2) PLJR 332 (Smt. Jyotsna Kumari v. The
State of Bihar) and 2000 (3) PLJR 139 (Mahmood
Azam Siddique v. The State of Bihar) observing as
follows:
5
“12. Now it is a settled law that once an order
of transfer issued and acted upon, it is spent
its force. Thereafter, no substantive part
remains to be stayed or rescinded and any
order to that effect is redundant.”
8. It is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incidence of service, the
Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order, unless there
is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. The
employees may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in
public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the
government to post another person, if any vacancy arises on account
of transfer/posting of an employee. [see Airport Authority of India v.
Rajiv Ratan Pandey and others, 2009 (8) SCC 337 and Chief
Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and
others v. G. Ratnam and others, 2007 (8) SCC 212 and also Shilpi
Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar and others, 1991 Suppl. 2,
SCC 659]. Further, from the documents annexed with the petition and
the instructions submitted by the respondents/State, this Court do not
find any scope of interference in this petition.
9. In view of the above settled legal position and also in the facts and
circumstances of the case, no case for interference with the impugned
order is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
ved