The Jharkhand High Court has reaffirmed that state government transfer policies, even if non-statutory, are binding when adopted as administrative norms. In a significant ruling, the Court quashed the posting of a retiring medical officer to a remote district 400 km from her residence, holding that the State’s own policy mandates consideration of an employee’s convenience in the final year of service.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Dr. Pushplata, a medical officer with over three decades of service, was appointed to the post of Medical Officer in 1990 and later appointed as Tutor in the Department of Physiology at Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Ranchi, on 15.08.2008. After the introduction of RIMS Rules, 2014, the post of Tutor was reclassified as a tenure post, leading to denial of permanent status. This issue was litigated in LPA No. 615 of 2017, which was decided against the petitioner and other similarly placed tutors.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was initially posted at Primary Health Centre, Siwan, w.e.f. 04.11.1990
- Appointed as Tutor at RIMS on 15.08.2008
- RIMS Rules, 2014 reclassified Tutor posts as tenure posts
- LPA No. 615 of 2017 upheld non-permanent status of Tutors
- Similar cases were taken to the Supreme Court, which allowed SLPs of other Tutors
- The petitioner filed SLP(C) No. 12235 of 2024, which was referred to Lok Adalat
- On 31.07.2024, the Department of Health agreed to regularize her service subject to Finance Department approval
- Petitioner submitted joining on 06.12.2023 and again on 13.08.2024, but no posting was assigned
- Memo dated 15.12.2025 regularized her service from 01.09.2008 to 06.12.2023
- Impugned posting order dated 24.12.2025 assigned her to Barhait, Sahibganj - 400 km from Ranchi
- Petitioner is due to superannuate on 30.06.2026
- She suffers from hypothyroidism, rheumatoid arthritis, and Raynaud’s syndrome
- Her husband is also unwell and requires medical care in Ranchi
- Representation dated 2025 requesting posting in Ranchi remained unaddressed
Procedural History
- 15.08.2008: Appointment as Tutor at RIMS
- 2014: Introduction of RIMS Rules, 2014
- 2017: LPA No. 615 of 2017 decided against petitioner
- 2024: SLP(C) No. 12235 of 2024 filed before Supreme Court
- 31.07.2024: Settlement reached in Lok Adalat for regularization
- 06.12.2023: First joining submission
- 13.08.2024: Second joining submission
- 15.12.2025: Memo issued regularizing service from 01.09.2008 to 06.12.2023
- 24.12.2025: Impugned posting order issued to Barhait
- 05.01.2026: WP(S) No. 5588 of 2024 disposed of with liberty to raise grievances
- 22.04.2026: Hearing in present writ petition
- 04.05.2026: Judgment pronounced
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner: Argued that the posting to Barhait violates the State Government’s Resolution dated 25.10.1980, which requires consideration of an employee’s convenience in the final year of service. Highlighted her advanced age, chronic autoimmune conditions, and the absence of adequate medical facilities in Barhait. Emphasized that she had never been given an opportunity to join prior to the impugned order, and thus could not be accused of unauthorized absence.
Respondents: Contended that the 1980 Resolution is directory, not mandatory. Argued that the petitioner failed to join at the assigned place and therefore forfeited her claim. Asserted that she had ample opportunity to raise objections during WP(S) No. 5588 of 2024 but did not.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (1) quashing of the posting order dated 24.12.2025; (2) direction to post her within Ranchi or nearby; (3) regularization of service from 01.09.2008 to 06.12.2023; and (4) release of all arrears of salary with interest.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the State Government’s Resolution dated 25.10.1980, which directs that postings in the final year of service be considered with sympathy to the employee’s convenience, is binding on the administration, and whether its violation without justification renders the posting illegal.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on the State’s own Resolution dated 25.10.1980, which explicitly states: “As far as possible, the request of an employee for posting in his/her home district during the last year of retirement shall be considered with sympathy.” He cited Uttam Kujur v. State of Jharkhand to establish that such policies, once adopted, become binding administrative norms. He emphasized that the petitioner had no opportunity to challenge the posting before it was issued, as it was disclosed only in a supplementary affidavit. He further submitted that the petitioner’s medical condition and her husband’s dependency made relocation to Barhait, a remote PHC with no specialist care, unreasonable and inhumane.
For the Respondent
The State’s counsel argued that the 1980 Resolution is directory and not mandatory, and that administrative exigencies permit deviation. He contended that the petitioner’s failure to join after regularization constituted unauthorized absence, thereby forfeiting any claim to posting convenience. He also asserted that the petitioner had not raised medical grounds during earlier litigation, and therefore could not raise them belatedly.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the 1980 Resolution and its legal effect. It noted that while the Resolution is not a statutory rule, it was framed by the State as a formal administrative policy. The Court relied on its own judgment in Uttam Kujur v. State of Jharkhand, which held that once a government lays down a policy, subordinate authorities cannot override it arbitrarily. The Court emphasized the phrase “as far as possible” - not as a mere suggestion, but as a directive requiring justification for deviation.
"The procedure prescribed and the policy seems to be fair and rational. Once the Government has laid down norms and policy, there must be valid reasons to deviate from that."
The Court rejected the argument that the petitioner’s non-joining rendered her claim invalid. It observed that the petitioner had submitted her joining twice, and the State had failed to assign any posting for over a year. The impugned order was issued without any prior notice or opportunity to respond. The Court further noted that the respondents had not adduced any material to explain why posting the petitioner in Ranchi or nearby was not possible.
The Court also rejected the contention that the petitioner should have raised the issue earlier. The posting order was not disclosed until the supplementary counter-affidavit in the earlier writ petition, and thus the petitioner had no occasion to challenge it before.
The Court held that the State’s failure to consider the petitioner’s medical condition and proximity to her home - especially when she was within seven months of superannuation - amounted to an arbitrary exercise of power, violating principles of natural justice and reasonable classification.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court quashed the posting order dated 24.12.2025. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner’s posting at a suitable location, preferably within or near Ranchi, taking into account her medical condition and proximity to superannuation, within two weeks of receipt of this order. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary, which shall be released within eight weeks of receipt of this order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Government Policies Are Binding Even Without Statutory Force
- Practitioners must argue that any formal government resolution, circular, or policy - even if non-statutory - becomes binding once adopted as administrative practice
- Deviation requires documented, rational justification; mere administrative convenience is insufficient
- Courts will not permit arbitrary transfers that violate self-imposed norms
Medical Condition and Proximity to Retirement Are Material Factors
- Chronic illness and dependency on medical care in a specific location must be formally documented and raised at the earliest opportunity
- Posting an employee with serious health conditions to remote areas in the final year of service is prima facie unreasonable
- The phrase “as far as possible” imposes a positive duty on authorities to explore alternatives
Timing of Disclosure Determines Opportunity to Challenge
- If a transfer order is disclosed for the first time in a supplementary affidavit, the affected employee cannot be faulted for not challenging it earlier
- Courts will not penalize litigants for lack of opportunity to raise objections
- Procedural fairness requires timely disclosure of adverse administrative decisions
