1 - Shiv Kumar Sahu S/o Gokul Prasad Sahu Aged About 50 Years Posted v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya
Case Details
1 SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.07.22 11:08:51 +0530 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6786 of 2025 1 - Shiv Kumar Sahu S/o Gokul Prasad Sahu Aged About 50 Years Posted As Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Katgi Janpad Panchayat Kasdol District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector, Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Baloda Bazar Bhatapara District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 5 - Viveka Nand Jangde, Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Khapridih Janpad Panchayat Kasdol District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s) : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer 2 (Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 14/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition against the order dated 23-06- 2025 (Annexure P-1) whereby the services of the petitioner have been transferred from the Gram Panchayat, Katgi, to the Gram Panchayat, Bamhni, Janpad Panchayat Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working as Panchayat Secretary, and presently posted at Gram Panchayat Katgi, Janpad Panchayat Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara. His services have been transferred by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Kasdol, and transferred to Gram Panchayat Bamhni, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, is not competent to transfer the petitioner, and it is the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, is competent to transfer the petitioner. He would further submit that after transferring the petitioner from Katgi, no one is transferred there, and the Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat Baijnath is given additional charge of Gram Panchayat Katgi. He would also submit that on 26-05-2021, the Directorate, Panchayat, Chhattisgarh Government had issued a circular with respect to the transfer of the Panchayat Secretary, in which the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, had restricted to transfer the Panchayat Secretary, yet the petitioner has been transferred. therefore, the impugned transfer order of the petitioner is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the order dated 23-06-2025 is only an execution order of the order dated 20-06-2025 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Baloda Bazar, which itself shows in the impugned order dated 4. 5. 3 23-06-2025. It is not the transfer order passed by the Janpad Panchayat. The petitioner himself have stated that the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, is the competent authority to transfer the Panchayat Secretary, and in the present case, transfer order has been passed by the CEO, Jila Panchayat, therefore, there is no irregularity or infirmity in the impugned transfer order, and the petition is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. The main grievance of the petitioner is that his transfer order is issued by the CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Kasdol, who is not competent to transfer the petitioner and the CEO, Jila Panchayat, can transfer his services. From perusal of the impugned order dated 23-06-2025 (Annexure P-1) it reveals that the order dated 23-06-2025 is only a execution order issued by the CEO, Janpad Panchayat, in compliance of the order dated 20-06-2023 passed by CEO, Jila Panchayat, Baloda Bazar. The relevant part of the order dated 23- 06-2025 (Annexure P-1) is relevant to reproduced here which reads as under:- "मु(cid:2)ख्यका(cid:6)य(cid:7)पा(cid:6)लन अधि(cid:14)का(cid:6)री(cid:16), धि(cid:17)ल(cid:6) पा(cid:18)चा(cid:6)यत बल(cid:22)दा(cid:6)ब(cid:6)(cid:17)(cid:6)री भा(cid:6)टा(cid:6)पा(cid:6)री(cid:6) N-x- का(cid:26) आदा(cid:26)श ्ቅमु(cid:6)(cid:18)का 334/पा(cid:18)चा(cid:6)/स्था(cid:6)पान(cid:6)/2025 बल(cid:22)दा(cid:6)ब(cid:6)(cid:17)(cid:6)री दिदान(cid:6)(cid:18)का 6.6.2025 का(cid:26) (cid:17)(cid:6)री(cid:16) स्था(cid:6)न(cid:6)(cid:18)तरीण आदा(cid:26)श मु" आ(cid:18) दिशका सं(cid:18)(cid:14)$(cid:14)न कारीत(cid:26) हु&य(cid:26) मु(cid:2)ख्यका(cid:6)य(cid:7)पा(cid:6)लन अधि(cid:14)का(cid:6)री(cid:16) धि(cid:17)ल(cid:6) पा(cid:18)चा(cid:6)यत बल(cid:22)दा(cid:6)ब(cid:6)(cid:17)(cid:6)री का(cid:26) आदा(cid:26)श कामु(cid:6)(cid:18)का 367/पा(cid:18)चा(cid:6)/स्था(cid:6)पान(cid:6)/2025 बल(cid:22)दा(cid:6)ब(cid:6)(cid:17)(cid:6)री दिदान(cid:6)(cid:18)का 20.6.2025 का(cid:26) तहुत ቦኍ(cid:16) दिशवका(cid:2) मु(cid:6)री सं(cid:6)हु) संदिचात सं(cid:18)ब(cid:6)यत dVxh का$ स्था(cid:6)न(cid:6)(cid:18)तरिरीत कारी ቇኋ(cid:6)मु पा(cid:18)चा(cid:6)यत बम्हुन(cid:16) मु" पादास्था कारीन(cid:26) एव(cid:18) ቦኍ(cid:16) दिवव(cid:26)का(cid:6)न(cid:18)दा (cid:17)(cid:6)(cid:18)गडे(cid:26) संदिचाव ቇኋ(cid:6)मु पा(cid:18)चा(cid:6)यत खपारी(cid:16)डे(cid:16)हु मु1ल तथा(cid:6) अदितरिरी्ሹ ्ቚभा(cid:6)री ቇኋ(cid:6)मु पा(cid:18)चा(cid:6)यत ब4(cid:17)न(cid:6)था का$ ቇኋ(cid:6)मु पा(cid:18)चा(cid:6)यत dVxh मु" पादास्था दिकाय(cid:26) (cid:17)(cid:6)न(cid:26) एव(cid:18) ቇኋ(cid:6)मु पा(cid:18)चा(cid:6)यत ब4(cid:17)न(cid:6)था अदितरिरी्ሹ ्ቚभा(cid:6)री मु" यथा(cid:6)वत पादास्था रीखन(cid:26) का(cid:26) का(cid:6)रीण दिनम्न(cid:6)न(cid:2)सं(cid:6)री ्ቚभा(cid:6)री ल(cid:26)न(cid:26) हु(cid:26)त(cid:2) आदा(cid:26)दिशत दिकाय(cid:6) (cid:17)(cid:6)त(cid:6) हु4।" 4 6. It is quite vivid that the order dated 06-06-2025 is passed by the CEO, Jila Panchayat, Baloda Bazar in which certain modification has been made vide order dated 20-06-2025 by the CEO, Jila Panchayat, Baloda Bazar. The order dated 23-06-2025 is not an independent order but in compliance of the order dated 20-06-2025 issued by the CEO, Jila Panchayat, Baloda Bazar. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned transfer order is passed by the CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Kasdol, is misconceived. 7. 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 the public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the government to post another person if any vacancy arises on account of the 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 the instructions submitted by the respondents/State, this Court do not find any scope of interference in this petition. Further, this Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter. The court can interfere only in the case of proved mala fide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order, or the transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever by the Court order. It is not a case of proved mala fide, lack of competence of the officer passing the transfer order or infraction of any statutory Rules and Regulations. 5 8. 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 order
Decision
is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. sagrika Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge