Chhattisgarh High Court
WPS/7485/2026 of RAJENDRA SHUKLA Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 12 October 2026
2026:CGHC:44155 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7485 of 2026 Rajendra Shukla S/o Ram Lakhan Shukla Aged About 52 Years R/o E- 30, Radhaswami Nagar, Bhathagaon, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary,
CGHC010402472026
2026:CGHC:44155
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 7485 of 2026
Rajendra Shukla S/o Ram Lakhan Shukla Aged About 52 Years R/o E- 30, Radhaswami Nagar, Bhathagaon, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Development Commissioners Office, Vikas Bhawan, Sector 19, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh
The Additional Development Commissioner Development Commissioners Office, Vikas Bhawan, Sector 19, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Chief Engineer, Development Commissioners Office, Vikas Bhawan, Sector 19, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
5 - The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Janpad Panchayat Dharsiwa, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner
: Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate
For Respondents/ State
: Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Panel Lawyer
(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)
Order on Board
13/10/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the impugned transfer order dated 01.10.2026 (Annexure P/1), insofar as it relates to the petitioner, whereby he has been transferred from Janpad Panchayat, Dharsiwa, District Raipur, to Janpad Panchayat, Lohandiguda, District Bastar.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is presently posted as Sub Engineer at Janpad Panchayat, Dharsiwa, District Raipur, and suffered an attack of brain haemorrhage in the year 2025, due to which he is undergoing continuous medical treatment at VY Hospital, Raipur. He submits that the petitioner requires regular medical treatment and that, in the event of his transfer, he would suffer irreparable hardship. He further submits that the petitioner's wife is also posted as Assistant Teacher (L.B. cadre) at Government Primary School, Doma, District Raipur, while his aged mother, who is about 86 years old, resides with him and requires his care and assistance for her regular medical check-ups. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has already approached the committee constituted under the State Government's Transfer Policy by submitting a representation raising all his grievances. He, therefore, prays that the present petition may be disposed of with a direction to the competent authority/committee to consider and decide the petitioner's representation in accordance with law and the applicable Transfer Policy within a stipulated period.
3. Learned State counsel fairly submits that if the representation of the petitioner is still pending consideration before the Committee constituted under Clause 8 of the State Transfer Policy, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.
5. Considering the nature of grievance raised by the petitioner regarding his medical condition and ongoing treatment, as well as the submission made by learned State counsel, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent Transfer Committee constituted under Clause 8 of the State Transfer Policy to consider and decide the petitioner's representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law and the applicable Transfer Policy, particularly keeping in view the petitioner's medical condition, preferably within a period of 25 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. The petitioner is directed to apprise the said Committee about the pendency of his representation and the order passed by this Court within a period of 05 days from today.
7. Till the decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner, the effect and operation of the impugned transfer order dated 01.10.2026 (Annexure P/1), insofar as it relates to the petitioner, shall remain stayed.
8. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU)
JUDGE $. Bhilwar