Allowed

Abrar Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Jul 2026WPS/5383/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Sub-Engineer posted at Municipal Corporation Raipur challenged his transfer order to Jagdalpur as violating Section 58(5) and (6) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, since inter-corporation movement requires deputation or lien. The court found the order was neither and quashed it, allowing the State to reassign him lawfully by deputation if needed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned transfer/posting order dated 11.07.2026 (Annexure P/1) quashed; liberty reserved for State to assign petitioner on deputation under the Act.

Abrar Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Municipal and Town Planning | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

CGHC010271862026

2026:CGHC:30255

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 5383 of 2026

¶7

Abrar Khan S/o A.B. Khan Aged About 34 Years Posted As SubEngineer, At Municipal Corporation Raipur, District - Raipur, C.G.

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

Digitally signed bySHOAIB SHOAIB ANWAR ANWAR Date:2026.07.16 17:29:35 +0530

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, C.G.

¶12

2 - Deputy Secretary Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, C.G.

¶13

3 - Municipal Corporation Raipur Through Its Commissioner District Raipur, C.G.

¶14

4 - Municipal Corporation Jagdalpur Through Its Commissioner, District Bastar, C.G.

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

(Cause title taken from CIS)

¶17

¶18

For Petitioner(s)	:Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Zainab Mustafa Vanak, Advocate
For Respondent(s)	:Shri Gary Mukhopadhyay, Addl. Advocate
	General
For Respondent No.	3 :Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate appears on
	behalf of Shri PankajAgrawal,Advocate

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

16.07.2026

¶22

By the present petition, under Article 226, the petitioner seeks quashment of the posting order dated 11.07.2026, wherein, the petitioner has been transferred from Municipal Corporation Raipur to Municipal Council Jagdalpur on the post of Sub-Engineer. In the said order his name is at serial No. 52.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that initially the petitioner appointed as Sub-Engineer and posted at Raipur. According to the petitioner by order dated 11.07.2026, the petitioner has been transferred from Raipur to Jagdalpur by assigning the reason of administrative exigency. Learned counsel would submit that the employees of one Municipal Corporation cannot be transferred to another Municipal Corporation as provided under Section 58(5) and (6) of the Municipal Corporation Act 1956. In support of his contention,

¶24

¶25

learned counsel would place reliance upon the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in the matter

¶26

o f Jitendra Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. & another in WP No.

¶27

4045/2017 , wherein service of petitioner was transferred from Municipal Ujjain Corporation to Municipal Corporation Ashoknagar. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, quashed the transfer order by relying upon the order of Full Bench in the case of Indore Nagar Nigam Karmachari Sangh , reported in

¶28

1998 (1) MPLJ 449 .

¶29

On the other hand, learned State counsel as also the learned

¶30

counsel for the corporation opposes the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that present writ petition is without any substance and deserves to be dismissed as petitioner has failed to demonstrate any infringement of right for which a writ may be issued by this Court. There is no violation of Section 58 (5) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as "the Act of 1956") in passing the order of the petitioner. The Section 58 (5) of the Act, 1956 empowers the State Government to transfer any of fi cer or servant of a Municipal Corporation to any other Municipal Corporation

¶31

¶32

without consultation of the ofcer or servant concerned and fi also of the Corporation concerned. Further, the Act of 1956, Section 58 (6) protects the lien on the post of ofcer or servant fi and also protects the pay and allowance as entitled in the parent corporation, therefore, the grounds raised by the petitioner that, the transfer is in violation of the rules and is apprehending of seniority, pay and allowances being adversely af f ected, is not well-founded. In support of their contention, they placed reliance upon the the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and another vs. Siya Ram and another, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 405 has held that, transfer, is not only an incident of service, but a condition of service as well and is necessary in public interest and efciency in public administration. It is further fi contention of learned State counsel that the impugned order passed by the respondent authorities, is proper, legal, within the jurisdiction and strictly in accordance with law, therefore, there is no inf i rmity or illegality in the same, the petition fled i

¶33

by the petitioner is devoid of merit and substance, thus, deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.

¶34

¶35

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused record as well as the documents appended with the writ petition.

¶36

Perusal of the record as well as the impugned orders shows that, petitioner, a sub engineer has been transferred from Municipal Corporation Raipur to Municipal Council Jagdalpur.

¶37

On conscious appreciation of the grounds raised by the petitioner with respect to Section 58 (5) and Section 58 (6) of the Act of 1956, transfer can be made only on deputation or having taken lien, whereas in the present case, the order impugned is purely a transfer order. Hence on this ground alone, transfer of the petitioner is contrary to the provisions of the Act 1956. Transfer order passed by respondent shows that it was neither a deputation order nor a lien, as such, transfer order passed in respect of petitioner cannot be said to be in accordance with law.

¶38

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order 11.07.2026, (Annexure P/1), in respect of the petitioner is hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the State/respondents that, if they so desire or if any

¶39

¶40

administrative exigency so requires, they may send the

¶41

petitioner on deputation in accordance with the provisions of

¶42

the Act of 1956. sd/-

¶43

(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶44

Shoaib