[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Vijay Kumar Sharma vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited on 30 March, 2026
1/4
2026:CGHC:14836
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 2298 of 2025
Vijay Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri G. L. Sharma Aged About 58 Years R/o A-
56, Priyadarshini Nagar, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through The Chairman Cum Managing
Director, Head Quarter, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.)
2 - Director Technical S.E.C.L. Head Quarter, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur
(C.G.)
3 - General Manager (P./ Exe. Est.) S.E.C.L., S.E.C.L. Head Quarter,
Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)
4 - General Manager (E. And T.) - H.O.D. S.E.C.L., S.E.C.L. Head Quarter,
Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)
5 - General Manager (E. And T.) S.E.C.L., S.E.C.L. Head Quarter, Bilaspur,
District - Bilaspur (C.G.)
6 - Vivek Kumar Agarwal Posted As Manager (E5 Grade), Area General
Manager Office, Korba Area, District - Korba (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
Digitally
signed by
PRAVEEN
KUMAR
SINHA
Date:
2026.04.01
19:04:48
+0530
For Petitioner : Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Advocate
For Resp. No.1 to 5 : Mr. V.R. Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vinod
Deshmukh, Advocate
For Resp. No.6 : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Order on Board
30/03/2026
1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, this
case is heard finally.
2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-
"10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue a suitable writ, order or suitable
direction to the respondent authorities to
produce the record in respect of passing of
impugned transfer order dated 24/03/2025,
passed contrary to CIL's Office Memo dt.
21/06/2022 of posting for kind perusal of this
Hon'ble Court.
10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
please to issue appropriate writ, order or
direction for quashing the Impugned transfer
order dt. 24/03/2025, so far as concerned with
transfer of petitioner from SECL HQ to Korba
Area.
10.3 Any other relief, which may be deemed fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case, may also be allowed.."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner while
working on the post of E-5 category was promoted to the post of E-6
category vide order dated 26.02.2025 in SECL. However, after
promotion, vide order dated 24.03.2025, petitioner has been
transferred to Korba area. It is contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner that petitioner's mother aged about 88 years is suffering with
old age ailments and therefore it will be difficult for petitioner to join at
the transferred place. He also contended that at Korba, proper medical
facilities like available in Bilaspur would not be available and therefore
also order of transfer may be interdicted. It is also contended that
posting of petitioner is in contravention of office memo dated
21.06.2022 and referred to Clause 8 (i) (existing provision).
4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes submission of
learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that order
Annexure P-6 with which petitioner is aggrieved is an order of transfer.
From contents of order it is appearing that order is on administrative
ground, because along with the petitioner, three other employees have
been transferred and therefore order does not call for any interference
on merit. They however submit that if petitioner wants to be posted at a
particular place for reasons that his mother is suffering with ailment
then he can submit application/representation before the appropriate
authorities i.e. respondents No. 2 & 3, which can be considered in
accordance with law. The ground raised by counsel for petitioner
referring to office memo dated 21.06.2022 is not attracted in this case.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the
documents annexed along with writ petition.
6. As during course of argument submission is made with respect to
difficulty to be faced by petitioner in complying with the order of transfer
dated 24.03.2025 on the grounds as raised with regard to office memo
dated 21.06.2022, in the opinion of this Court, is not attracted as the
order under challenge is of a transfer and not of posting on promotion.
Further, it talks of its application when employee spent less than one
year in a subsidiary/establishment which is not the case of petitioner
and not a case that petitioner is posted in other subsidiary. Other
contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that mother of
petitioner is aged about 88 years and is suffering with old age medical
ailments. His mother is taking treatment at Apollo Hospital Bilaspur.
Such medical facility may not be available at transferred place i.e.
Korba.
7. I do not find force in the first ground raised, accordingly, it is
repelled. However, considering the grievance raised by petitioner of
medical ailment of his mother, respondent authority/employer would
be proper authority to consider difficulty of petitioner and, therefore, I
find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition permitting the
petitioner to submit representation before the respondents No. 2 & 3
within a period of 10 days and if such representation is submitted,
concerned authority shall consider and decide the same within a
further period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of representation in
an objective manner, symptomatically.
8. With the aforementioned observation and direction, writ petition
stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Praveen
