Dismissed

Kavita Bharti v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Dec 2022WPS/8167/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a writ petition challenging the transfer of a Patwari. The court held that the Collector's power to transfer under the 2014 circular overrides the 2022 transfer policy ban. It found no arbitrary exercise of power or malafide as no violation of statutory provisions was shown. Petitioner filed that she had not completed three years at her posting, but the cou

What did the court decide?

The petition is dismissed and the order of transfer is upheld.

Kavita Bharti Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

W.P.(S) No. 8167 of 2022

¶5

Kavita Bharti D/o Shri Ramkhilawan Bharti Aged About 33 Years Occupation- Service, Presetnly Posted As Patwari At Patwari Circle No. 48, Tahsil- Berla, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex Naya Raipur Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

¶10

Collector Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Berla, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Vaibhav Singh, P.L.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board

¶15

01/12/2022

¶16

Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 28.10.2022, whereby petitioner, who is working as Patwari, posted at P.C. No.48, Tehsil – Berla, District Bemetara is transferred to P.C. No.37, Piparbhatta, Tehsil – Bemetara.

¶17

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is holding the post of Patwari. It is submitted that according to transfer policy formulated by State Government of the year 2022, Collector can transfer employee within the district for which the

¶18

¶19

period of making transfer is from 1^st of September till 10^th of September, 2022. Impugned order has been issued on 28.10.2022 and therefore, it is apparently issued during ban period. He further contended that in the impugned order of transfer, respondent No.2 has categorically mentioned that the employee/Patwari, who are posted since last three years or more than three years are being considered for their transfer but petitioner has not completed three years of service at her present place of posting, therefore also action of respondent No.2 in transferring petitioner is arbitrary. He also submits that more than 10% of employee has been transferred by respondent No.2, which is apparent from the impugned order of transfer. Hence, the order of transfer so far as it relates to petitioner be set-aside.

¶20

Learned State counsel opposing the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner would submit that Collector, who issued order of transfer categorically mentioned that transfer is being affected based on the circular dated 12.09.2014, issued by State Government, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, wherein the Collector is having the jurisdiction to transfer Patwari/ Revenue Officers and the transfer policy would not have any bearing on the authority of Collector. He also submits that as the powers have been given to the Collectors to transfer the revenue officials for better administration, submissions of learned counsel for petitioner is not sustainable.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available in record.

¶22

¶23

On query being made by the Court with regard to circular mentioned in the impugned order dated 12.09.2014, counsel for petitioner fairly produced the circular for perusal of this Court. Relevant portion of circular is extracted below :-

¶24

**dafMdk&16

¶25

‘kklu }kjk izfro”kZ tkjh dh tkus okyh lkekU; LFkkukarj.k uhfr esa fdlh ckr ds gksrs gq;s Hkh laHkkxh; vk;qDr yksdfgr esa fdlh Hkh le; vius laHkkx ds Hkhrj ,d ftys ls nwljs ftys esa fdlh rglhynkj] uk;c rglhynkj ,oa jktLo fujh{kd dk LFkkukarj.k dj ldsaxs rFkk ftyk dysDVj vius ftys ds Hkhrj ,d rglhy ls nwljs rglhy esa fdlh rglhynkj] uk;c rglhynkj] jktLo fujh{kd ,oa iVokfj;ka dk Lfkkukarj.k dj ldsaxsaA rglhynkj] uk;c rglhynkj ,oa jktLo fujh{kd dks ,d laHkkx ls nwljs laHkkx esa LFkkukarj.k jkT; ‘kklu ds }kjk fd;k tkosxkA fdlh le; fdlh vf/kdkjh vFkok deZpkjh dk LFkkukarj.k mijksDr vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk fd;s tkus ds lkFk gh jkT; ‘kklu Lrj ls Hkh varZlaHkkxh; LFkkukarj.k vkns’k tkjh gksus dh fLFkfr esa jkT; ‘kklu dk vkns’k ekU; gksxkA**

¶26

From bare perusal of circular, which is referred in the impugned order of transfer would show that powers have been given to the Collectors to transfer the Patwari not withstanding any of provision in the transfer policy to be formulated by State Government. State Government vide letter dated 12.09.2014 has issued instructions to the Collector to transfer the revenue officials in public interest, hence in view of the language used under letter dated 12.09.2014, submission of learned counsel for petitioner that respondent No.2 could not have transferred the petitioner during the ban period is not sustainable. So far as the second ground raised by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner has not completed three years on the date of issuance

¶27

¶28

of transfer is concerned, the petitioner in the writ petition have pleaded that petitioner has joined the present place of posting on 26.12.2019, order of transfer is issued in the month of October, 2022. Petitioner has already completed about two years and 10 months at her present place of posting on the date of issuance of order of transfer, hence, in absence of any violation of statutory provisions, I am not inclined to accept the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that respondent No.2 has exercised the power arbitrarily in transferring the petitioner as she has not completed three years of service at her present place of posting. Transfers are made to meet out the administrative exigency for which employer are the appropriate authority, therefore, in the opinion of this Court change of place of posting from one place to another is within the domain of respondent No.2 and it can not be said to be arbitrary in any manner unless some malafide is projected against the authorities transferring the employees. In the case at hand no ground of malafide is pleaded or raised by counsel for petitioner.

¶29

For the forgoing discussion, I do not find any merits in this petition, therefore, it is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed.

¶30

Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶31

Balram

Kavita Bharti v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kavita Bharti v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuberchand Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Divya Kurre Alias Vidya Vs the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd.

Dr. Amit Kumar Gaur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mukesh Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajkumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kedarnath Kaiwarty Vs State of Chhattisgarh