1 / 5 2025:CGHC:18683 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2066 of 2025 1 - Vijay Kumar Soni S/o Late R.K. Soni Aged About 59 Years Presently Posted As Patwari At Phn 55, Tahsil Patan District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 – Collector, Land Record District- Durg (C.G.) 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Patan District- Durg (C.G.) 4 – Tahsildar, Patan District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy. Govt. Adv. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 24/04/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner, who is posted as Patwari at PH No.50 (now PH 55), Belhari, District Durg, is SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.04.29 10:52:06 +0530 2 / 5 questioning the order dated 05/17.03.2025 by which the petitioner has been directed to handover the charge of PH No.55, Belhari to Ravi Prakash Dewangan and additional charge of PH No.44 to Shri Chandrashekhar Sahu. The petitioner is also seeking salary from February, 2024 to February, 2025. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that earlier the petitioner challenged the order dated 16/02/2024 read with the amended order dated 05/03/2024 before this Court in WPS No.1611/2024 which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18/03/2024. Thereafter the petitioner rendering his services at his place of posting. At that time, by order dated 25/05/2024, the additional charge of PH No.44 has been given to the petitioner. He would submit that the Returning Officer (Panchayat), Patan, District Durg also by order dated 17/02/2025 assigned the work of Panchayat Election of 2024-25. Despite the aforesaid facts, the Tahsildar, Patan passed the impugned order and directed the petitioner to handover the charge of PH No.55 to Ravi Prakash Dewangan and PH No.44 to Chandrashekhar Sahu thus the order impugned is illegal and arbitrary. He would further submit that the salary of the petitioner for the period from February, 2024 to February, 2025 has also not been released, despite the fact that he has rendered the service during the said period. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the present writ petition questioning the order dated 16/02/2024 and 3 / 5 05/03/2024 is not maintainable as earlier the petitioner preferred the writ petition questioning the same orders in WPS No. 1611/2024 and the said writ petition has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18/03/2024. By order dated 5/17.3.2025 the Tahsildar has relieved the petitioner and directed him to handover the charge of PH No.55 to Ravi Prakash Dewangan and PH No.44 to Chandrashekhar Sahu. He further submits that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as he has committed defiance of the order passed by the Collector and failed to join at the transferred place of posting. He would submit that because of the aforesaid act the petitioner is also not entitled for salary of the aforesaid period. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. This Court vide order dated 27/03/2025 directed the State counsel to file an affidavit of the Collector to specify who has permitted the petitioner to continue in the PH No.26 Tahsil Patan in spite of the transfer of the petitioner from Patan to Dhamdha and how presently after one year the Tahsildar is directing to hand over the charge of the said Patwari Halka to some other Patwaris namely, Ravi Prakash Dewangan and Chanrashekhar Sahu. 6. In compliance of the said order of this Court, the affidavit of the Collector, Durg has been filed stating that the additional charge of PH No.44 has been given by the SDO (Revenue), Patan to the petitioner and the said fact is not in the knowledge of the Collector 4 / 5 and as and when the same came to his notice, immediately a show cause notice was issued to the SDO and directed him to submit his explanation. 7. It appears from the affidavit of the Collector that in spite of the order passed by the Collector transferring the petitioner, the authorities did not take any action against the petitioner for non- compliance of the transfer order issued by the Collector. It is seen that the SDO has given the additional charge of PH No.44 and accordingly, the petitioner continued in Patan at the behest of SDO in an unauthorized manner. 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and others v. S.L. Abbas reported in (1993) 4 SCC 357 has observed as under: “Transfer is an incident of Government Service and who should be transferred where, is for the appropriate authority to decide. It held that unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. Similarly, in the case of S.K. Nausad Rahaman v. Union of India reported in (2022) 12 SCC 1 it has been held by the Supreme Court that transfer in an All India Service is an incident of service and that whether, and if so where, an employee should be posted, are the matters which are governed by the exigencies of service, and that an employee has no fundamental right or, for that matter, a vested right to claim a transfer or posting of their choice. The Supreme Court went on to add that executive instructions and administrative directions concerning 5 / 5 transfers and postings do not confer an indefeasible right to to claim a transfer or posting. Individual convenience of persons who are employed in the service is subject to the overarching needs of the administration.” 9. Since, it is a settled law in the matter of Union of India and others (Supra), wherein it has been observed by the Supreme Court that transfer is an incident of Government Service and who should be transferred where, is for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by malafides or is made in violation of statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. Therefore, this Court does not find illegality or infirmity in the order impugned. 10. For the forgoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order impugned is just and proper warranting no interference of this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 11. However, with regard to non-payment of salary from February, 2024 to February, 2025 is concerned, since the petitioner rendered his services as per the orders of the SDO, Patan, respondent authorities are directed to release the salary of the petitioner, after due verification, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Gowri/ $. Bhilwar