The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, presided over by Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, has dismissed a writ petition filed by a municipal employee seeking transfer to his parent establishment or a place of his choice. The court ruled that an employee cannot demand a specific posting location, emphasizing that accommodating surplus staff is strictly an administrative decision for the employer to make based on organizational requirement.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Ankit Yadu, was initially appointed as an Assistant Grade-III in the Municipal Corporation, Raipur. On September 30, 2021, he was transferred to the Municipal Corporation, Risali, where he was found to be in excess of the sanctioned strength. Subsequently, on September 18, 2025, he was transferred to the Municipal Corporation, Charoda, Bhilai, where he was again identified as surplus.
Seeking repatriation to his parent establishment at Raipur, the petitioner submitted a representation to the authorities. When no action was taken, he approached the High Court in WPS No. 349/2026, which was disposed of on January 20, 2026, directing the competent authority to decide his representation within two months. Following delays in deciding the representation, the petitioner initiated contempt proceedings (Contempt Case No. 841/2026). During the pendency of those proceedings, the respondent authorities conducted a personal hearing on July 28, 2026, and issued an order on July 31, 2026, transferring the petitioner from Charoda to the Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon.
Aggrieved by the transfer to Rajnandgaon instead of Raipur, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the transfer order dated July 31, 2026, and requesting a direction for a posting at the Municipal Corporation, Raipur.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel representing the petitioner contended that the petitioner was being subjected to frequent transfers within a short period—from Raipur to Risali, then to Charoda, and subsequently to Rajnandgaon. It was submitted that since he was repeatedly found surplus, the authorities ought to have considered his repatriation to his parent establishment at Raipur or accommodated him by way of deputation after securing his consent. The petitioner argued that the transfer order lacked reasons for rejecting his repatriation request and reflected non-application of mind and arbitrariness.
Conversely, counsel for the State and respondent authorities opposed the petition, submitting that the transfer to Rajnandgaon was made after considering the petitioner’s own request for a transfer on the ground that he was a surplus employee at Charoda.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court observed that it was undisputed that the petitioner was found surplus at Charoda and had himself submitted an application for transfer to another corporation. The court held that having requested a transfer due to being surplus, the petitioner could not demand a specific posting at Raipur merely because it was his place of choice or where he had previously served.
Addressing the contention regarding frequent transfers and deputation, the court noted that successive transfers do not automatically render a transfer order illegal, nor were the authorities obligated to send the employee on deputation.
The bench stressed that determining where a surplus employee should be placed rests solely with the administration. The court observed:
“The decision regarding the place where a surplus employee is to be accommodated is essentially an administrative matter. The Court cannot substitute its own choice of posting for that of the competent authority merely because another arrangement may have been preferable from the employee’s point of view.”
Relying on established legal principles, the High Court cited the Supreme Court decision in Namrata Verma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others (2021 SCC OnLine SC 3337) and reiterated:
“It is the trite law that it is not for the employee to insist to transfer him/her and/or not to transfer him/her at a particular place. It is for the employer to transfer an employee considering the requirement.”
Decision
Finding no ground for legal interference or unsustainability in the impugned transfer order dated July 31, 2026, the High Court held that the petition lacked merit and accordingly dismissed it.
Case Details
Case Title: Ankit Yadu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Case No.: WPS No. 6125 of 2026
Bench: Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
Date: 18/08/2026
