Dismissed

Rajkumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Dec 2022WPS/8368/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, in a writ petition, considered a challenge to the transfer of a Patwari to a new posting. The petitioner argued the transfer violated the 2022 transfer policy ban and his three-year service rule. The Court upheld the transfer based on a 2014 circular giving Collectors power to transfer in public interest despite policy clauses.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as the transfer was valid under the 2014 circular and no malafide was established.

Rajkumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

W.P.(S) No. 8368 of 2022

¶5

Rajkumar Sahu S/o Shri Deocharan Sahu Aged About 39 Years Occupation - Service, Presently Posted As Patwari At Patwari Circle No. 35 Tilai, 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

Collector Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

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

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board

¶13

01/12/2022

¶14

Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 28.10.2022, whereby petitioner, who is working as Patwari, posted at P.C. No.35, Tilai, Tehsil – Berla, District Bemetara is transferred to P.C. No.11, Murta, Tehsil – Nawagarh.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

period. In the impugned order of transfer, respondent No.2 has categorically mentioned that the Patwari, who are posted since last three years or more are being considered for their transfer but petitioner has not completed three years of service at his present place of posting, therefore also action of respondent No.2 in transferring petitioner is arbitrary. 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.

¶18

Learned State counsel opposing the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner would submit that Collector, in the order mentioned that order of transfer is based on the circular dated 12.09.2014, issued by State Government, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management. According to the said circular, Collector is having competence to transfer Patwari notwithstanding the clauses of transfer policy. He also submits that as the powers have been given to the Collectors and Revenue Officers to transfer subordinate revenue employees in public interest for better administration and hence submissions of learned counsel for petitioner is not sustainable.

¶19

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

¶20

On query being made by 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 :-

¶21

¶22

**dafMdk&16

¶23

‘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**

¶24

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 clause in transfer policy to be formulated by State Government. State Government vide letter dated 12.09.2014 has issued instructions to the Collector and other Revenue Officer to transfer the subordinate revenue officials in public interest, hence in view of the contents of 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 of transfer is concerned, the petitioner in the writ petition have pleaded that he has joined the present place of posting on 24.01.2021, order of transfer is issued in the month of October, 2022. Petitioner has already completed about 1 year

¶25

¶26

and 9 months at his 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 he has not completed three years of service at his present place of posting. Change of place of posting from one place to another is within the domain of respondent No.2. Court can interfere only when transfer is actuated with malafide. In the case at hand no ground of malafide is pleaded or raised by counsel for petitioner.

¶27

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

¶28

Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶29

Balram

Rajkumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar Sahu 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

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

Kedarnath Kaiwarty Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kavita Bharti Vs State of Chhattisgarh