Allowed

Dr Ravishankar Rathore v. Chhattisgarh Revenue Disaster Management Department

Chhattisgarh HC20 Sept 2026WPS/6874/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a Tehsildar, challenged a transfer order that treated him as still posted in District Sakti despite his having been transferred to Korba in February 2024, relieved in August 2026, joined Korba on 24 August 2026 and posted at Ajgarbahar on 2 September 2026. The High Court found the impugned order suffered from non-application of mind and quashed it, leaving the State free to issue a fresh transfer order if warranted.

What did the court decide?

Impugned transfer order dated 09.09.2026 quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioner; State at liberty to pass a fresh transfer order in accordance with law.

Dr Ravishankar Rathore Vs Chhattisgarh Revenue… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

CGHC010362662026

2026:CGHC:40960

NAFR

SOURABH BHILWAR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.09.22 10:25:22 +0530

¶8

WPS No. 6874 of 2026

¶9

Dr Ravishankar Rathore S/o Shri Devcharan Rathore Aged About 46 Years Presently Posted As Tehsildar Ajgarbahar Korba Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Petitioner

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - Chhattisgarh Revenue Disaster Management Department Through Its Secretary Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶13

2 - District Collector, Sakti District Sakti Chhattisgarh

¶14

3 - District Collector, Korba Collectorate Office Near Saket Bhawan Korba Chhattisgarh

¶15

4 - District Collector, Jashpur Jashpur Chhattisgarh

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr. P. Acharya, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General

¶19

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)

Order on Board

21/09/2026

By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the impugned transfer order dated 09.09.2026 (Annexure P/1), insofar as it relates to the petitioner and further seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to consider and decide his pending representation dated 11.09.2026 (Annexure P/2).

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide impugned order dated 09.09.2026, the petitioner, who is presently working as Tehsildar at Ajgarbahar, District Korba, has been transferred to District Jashpur. He submits that the petitioner was earlier transferred from District Sakti to District Korba vide order dated 25.02.2024 (Annexure P/5), pursuant to which he was ultimately relieved by the Collector, Sakti, vide order dated 21.08.2026 (Annexure P/6), and thereafter joined at District Korba on 24.08.2026 (Annexure P/7). It is further submitted that the Collector, Korba, thereafter, vide order dated 02.09.2026, posted the petitioner as Tehsildar, Ajgarbahar, District Korba, and the petitioner was discharging his duties at the said place. Learned counsel further submits that despite the aforesaid subsequent developments and the petitioner having been posted at Ajgarbahar only shortly prior thereto, the respondents, without taking the said facts into consideration and by treating the petitioner merely as Tehsildar posted at Sakti, have issued the impugned transfer order dated 09.09.2026, which demonstrates complete non-application of mind on the part of the competent authority. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order of transfer deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶25

¶26

Per contra , learned State counsel submits that, so far as the petitioner’s transfer is concerned, he is presently working as Tehsildar at District Korba. He submits that the petitioner had earlier been transferred from District Sakti to District Korba and, apparently, the subsequent developments regarding the petitioner’s relieving, joining and posting at Korba were not brought to the notice of the concerned authority at the time of issuance of the impugned transfer order dated 09.09.2026. He, therefore, submits that as the petitioner has already preferred a representation before the competent authority raising his grievance, necessary orders will be passed in the matter.

¶27

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

¶28

From perusal of the impugned transfer order dated 09.09.2026 (Annexure P/1), it appears that the petitioner has been transferred by treating him as Tehsildar posted at District Sakti. However, the documents placed on record, particularly the order dated 25.02.2024, the relieving order dated 21.08.2026 and the joining report dated 24.08.2026, disclose that the petitioner had already joined at District Korba and was thereafter posted as Tehsildar, Ajgarbahar, District Korba, vide order dated 02.09.2026. Thus, at the time of passing of the impugned order, the petitioner was admittedly posted and discharging his duties as Tehsildar at Ajgarbahar, District Korba. In these circumstances, it appears that the impugned order has been passed by the respondents treating the petitioner as Tehsildar posted at District Sakti, without taking

¶29

¶30

into consideration the subsequent orders relating to his relieving, joining and posting at District Korba. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from non-application of mind and cannot be sustained to the extent it concerns the petitioner.

¶31

Accordingly, the impugned transfer order dated 09.09.2026 (Annexure P/1), insofar as it relates to the petitioner, is hereby quashed.

¶32

Ex consequenti , the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶33

The respondents/ State shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order of transfer in respect of the petitioner, if so advised and if administrative exigency so requires, in accordance with law.

¶34

Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE

¶35

$. Bhilwar

Dr Ravishankar Rathore v. Chhattisgarh Revenue Disaster Management Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Ravishankar Rathore v. Chhattisgarh Revenue Disaster Management Department

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