2025:CGHC:22697 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3463 of 2025 Pankaj Pandey S/o. Ramchandra Pandey Aged About 52 Years Occupation - Service Posted As Assistant Grade - II In The Office Of Tahsildar - Baikunthpur, Dist. - Koriya (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector - Koriya Dist - Koriya (C.G.) 3 - The Upper Additional Collector Koriya, Dist. Koriya (C.G.) 4 - The Tahsildar Baikunthpur, Dist. Koriya (C.G.) 5 - Shri Shivgopal Sarthi Posted As Assistant Grade - II, In The Office Of District Najir Section, Dist. Koriya (C.G.) ---- Respondents (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri Rahul Mishra, Advocate For Respondents/State : Shri SP Kale, Addl AG ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 09.06.2025 1. Heard. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is working as Assistant Grade-II (for short, ‘AG-II’), and presently posted in the Office of Tahsil- Baikunthpur, district-Koriya, CG. Respondent-3 has transferred the petitioner to the district Nazir Cell, Baikunthpur, district-Koriya. Transfer order Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.06.13 10:32:27 +0530 Wps 3463 of 2025 2 has been passed by the Additional Collector, Koriya, who is not competent to transfer the employee. According to the definition provided in Rule 2(b) of the Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) Civil Services (Joining Time) Rules, 1982, "Transfer" means the movement of a Government servant from one post to another either within the same station or to another station to take up duties of a new post or in consequence of change of his headquarters, and by the impugned order, place of posting, as well as work of the petitioner has been changed, which comes under the definition of “Transfer”. He would also submit that earlier earlier the distribution order has been passed by the Tahsildar but in the present case, petitioner has been transferred by the Additional Collector. It is also submitted that there is Transfer Policy dated 12.08.2022, Annexure P5, in which the Collector is the competent authority to transfer an employee of Class-III or Class-IV. After recommendation of the In-charge, Hon’ble Minister of the district. It is further submitted by him that petitioner has been transferred from Tahsil Office, Baikunthpur only to accommodate respondent-5 there. Therefore, the impugned transfer order may be set aside. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the Transfer Policy, which the petitioner relied upon is, only for the period in between 16th August, 2022 to September, 2022, and it is not applicable in the present case. It would also submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the Additional Collector, District-Koriya, after approval of the Collector, issued the work distribution order, by which the petitioner was ordered to work at the district Nazir Cell, for which the Tahsildar is not the competent authority, and since it is only a work distribution order, and not a transfer order, which cannot be set aside by invoking a writ jurisdiction. Wps 3463 of 2025 3 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. From perusal of document- Annexure P1, i.e. order dated 29.04.2025, it appears that the Additional Collector, District-Koriya, after approval of the Collector concerned, passed work distribution order, by which the petitioner was directed to appear at the District Nazir Cell to discharge his duties temporarily. It is not the case that his place of posting is changed, or his nature of work is changed. Only change of work place does not come under the purview of “Transfer”, and provided under Rule 2(b) of the Rules, 1982. 6. Considering the material produced along with the present writ petition, this Court is of the opinion that order dated 29.04.2025 is not transfer of the petitioner, but it is the work distribution order, which does not affect the right of the petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order impugned. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma