Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 / 8 2025:CGHC:33810 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6852 of 2025 1 - Yogesh Kumar Nishad S/o Sudhir Kumar Nishad Aged About 36 Years Working As Patwari And Posted At Patwari Halka No. 37 Kamartara, Tahsil Dongargaon Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Rev) Donragaon District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4 - Gyandas Dhritlahre Working As Patwari At Patwari Halka No. 15 Gunderdehi, Tahsil Kumrda Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Anuja Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal 17/07/2025 Order on Board 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.20 11:36:22 +0530 transfer order dated 17.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner, who is a Patwari and posted at P.H. No. 37, Karamtara, Tahsil Dongargaon has been transferred to P.H. No. 6, Job, Tahsil 2 / 8 Chhuriya, along with additional charge of P.H. No.8, Nadiyakhurd, Tahsil Chhuriya. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, vide order dated 30.01.2024, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dongargaon, the petitioner was posted at P.H. No. 30, Kirgi and thereafter vide order dated 05.02.2024, he was posted at P.H. No. 37, Karamtara and now within the short span of time, he has been transferred from Karamtara to P.H. No. 6, Job along with additional charge of P.H. No. 8, Nadiyakhurd. The petitioner suffered by frequent transfer from one place to another. He would further submit that as per clause 1.1 and 1.2 of the transfer policy dated 05.06.2025, without recommendation of the concerned In-charge Minister of the district, no transfer order could be passed, but in the present case, there is no recommendation of the concerned In-charge Minister of the district. Clause 1.3 of the transfer policy would provide transfer of maximum 10% of the employees of class-IV category, however in the present case more than 40% of the Patwaris have been transferred in the district Rajnandgaon. He would also submit that the transfer of the petitioner is on the instance of the respondent No.4. He would further submit that vide order dated 07.07.2025, one Smt. Pooja Sinha has been transferred from P.H. No.6, Charbhata, Tahsil Kumarda to P.H. No.37, Karamtara, Tahsil Dongargaon. He would also submit that the petitioner has already worked in the scheduled area for sufficient time, but he again transferred to the scheduled area, which is in violation of clause 1.8 of the transfer policy dated 05.06.2025, therefore, the impugned transfer order of the petitioner is liable to be set-aside. 3 / 8 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that the transfer of the petitioner is strictly in accordance with the Transfer Policy dated 05.06.2025. The petitioner has been transferred on administrative exigency and on the public interest. Vide transfer order dated 17.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), one Santram Ghote was transferred from P.H. No.6, Job and in his place the petitioner has been transferred. The petitioner was given additional charge of P.H. No.8, Nadiyakhurd. In view of the administrative exigency and public interest, the petitioner was transferred from P.H. No. 37, Karamtara to P.H. No. 6, Job and the respondent No.4 has been transferred from P.H. No. 15, Gunderdehi to P.H. No. 37, Karamtara. He would also submit that the transfer order dated 17.06.2025 is strictly in accordance with law after due approval and within the norms of transfer policy dated 05.06.2025. There is no bar in the transfer policy that the employee cannot be again posted at the scheduled area, and therefore, there is no violation of the transfer
Decision
policy and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 5. The grievance of the petitioner that the impugned transfer order has been passed without any recommendation of the concerned In-charge Minister of the district and more than the percentage fixed in the transfer policy dated 05.06.2025 for transfer of the class-IV employees. The obtaining approval or fixing the percentage is depend upon the administrative exigency and by their internal communication of the department. The present transfer order dated 17.06.2025 is 4 / 8 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon. Section 22 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 provides for the “Sub-Divisional Officer” which is reproduced hereinbelow:- “22- (1) The Collector may place one or more Assistant Collectors of sub-divisional Officers. Deputy Collectors in-charge of a sub-division of a district or in-charge of two or more sub-divisions of a district. (2) Such Assistant Collector or Deputy Collector shall be called a Sub-Divisional Officer and shall exercise such powers of a Collector as the State Government may, by notification, direct.” Section 24 of the Code of 1959 provides for conferral of powers conferred by or under the Code of 1959 by the State Government on any person. Section 24 reads as under:- “24. (1) The State Government may confer on any person the powers conferred by or under this Code on any Revenue Officer. (2) The State Government may confer on any Assistant Collector, Tahsildar or Naib-Tahsildar the powers conferred by this Code on a Revenue Officer of a higher grade.” Sub-section (2) of Section 24 in a very specific term provides that the powers conferred by the Code of 1959 on a revenue officer of a higher grade can be conferred by the State Government on any Assistant Collector, Tahsildar or Naib Tahsildar. The Assistant 5 / 8 Collector has been shown to be a ‘Sub-Divisional Officer’ under Section 22 of the Code of 1959. 6. The State Government in exercise of powers conferred under Sections 22 & 24 of the Code of 1959 issued Notification dated 1.10.1959, which reads as under:- “In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 22 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (No.20 of 1959), and in supersession of all previous Notifications on the subject, the State Government hereby Officers shall exercise powers of a Collector under sub-section (2) of section 57, sub- section (5) of section 59, section 87, sub-section (2) of section 104 and sub-section (2) of section 110 of the said Code, within their respective jurisdictions.” 7. From perusal of the above Notification it is apparent that the State Government while exercising powers conferred under Section 22 (2) of the Code of 1959, has authorized the Sub- Divisional Officer to exercise powers of the Collector under Section 104 (2) of the Code of 1959 along with other provisions of the Code of 1959. The issue with respect to exercise of powers of the Collector by the Sub-Divisional Officer while dismissing Patwari from service has been considered by a Full Bench of MP High Court in Kala Bai v. State of MP & ors reported in (2011) 1 MPLJ 547 (FB) and after considering the relevant provisions of the MP Land Revenue Code, 1959, which are pari materia with the Code of 1959, has held as under:- “26. The conclusion recorded by us on the question referred to by the Single Judge are summarized as 6 / 8 under:- (a) That the Sub Divisional Officer has been conferred powers of the Collector to appoint a Patwari in view of the provisions of section 22 (2) of the Code and the Notification dated 1.10.1959 published in the M.P. Gazette on 9.10.1959 and as a consequence thereof he also has the power to remove a Patwari from service. (b) That there is no conflict between the decision rendered in the case of Vishwanath Prasad (supra) and Mangilal (supra) as the factual matrix on the basis of which the two judgements were rendered was totally different and that the Division Bench in the case of Mangilal (supra) on that count has rightly distinguished the case of Vishwanath Prasad (supra). (c) The Single Bench judgments in the case of Vinod Kumar Khare v. State of M.P., 2008 (4) MPLJ6 Kumar Khare v. State of M.P. WP No.7785/2003 dated 10.1.2005; and Phulloo Ram Kol v. State of M.P., No.8777/2003 dated 25-9- 2008 are hereby overruled while the judgment in the case of Ravindra Kumar Gupta v. State of M.P., W.P. No.10863/2009 decided on 5-8-2010 [2010 (4) MPLJ 439] is hereby affirmed and approved. The reference made to this Full Bench is answered accordingly.” 8. The present transfer order of the Patwaris is in fact the order of 7 / 8 posting from one patwari halka number to another patwari halka number within the district from one tahsil to another. 9. So far as the submission made by the petitioner regarding frequent transfer is concerned, from perusal of the order dated 30.01.2024 and 05.02.2024, the petitioner was posted at P.H. No. 30, Kirgi and P.H. No. 37 Karamtara respectively within the same revenue division and the order dated 05.02.2024 is an amended order of posting of the petitioner. It is not mentioned in those orders that it is a transfer order, but it is a change of patwari halka within the revenue division on administrative exigency. Presently also, the petitioner has been transferred from tahsil Dongargaon to tahsil Chhuriya, which is within the same revenue division, for which the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dongargaon is competent to transfer him on administrative exigency and public interest. 10. 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 8 / 8 the instructions submitted by the respondents/State, this Court do not find any scope of interference in this petition. 11. 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 transfer order dated 17.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ved Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge