-1- NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6833 of 2022 Anurag Shukla S/o Ramakant Shukla Aged About 35 Years Presently Posted As Patwari, Land Record Section, Tehsil-Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon (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 - Under Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management Departmen, Mantralaya, Atl Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.). 3 - Collector, Land Record District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 4 - Sub-Divisional Officer(Revenue) Bilaspur, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Anadi Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.08.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- -2- “10.1. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned transfer order dated 30.09.2022 issued by respondent Under Secretary, Revenue & Disaster Management (Annexure P/1), for the petitioner. 10.2. To kindly grant any other writ/writs, order/orders, relief/reliefs in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon’ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2) Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is posted on the post of Patwari and he has been transferred from the Office of Collector, Land Records Section, District Rajnandgaon, to the Office of Collector, Land Records, District Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki. He would further submit that the seniority of the Patwaris is maintained in the district itself; thus, the transfer of a Patwari outside the district would affect his service conditions, since a Patwari is appointed for a district and can only be transferred within that district. He would also submit that the issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra, in view of the decision of the High Court rendered in the matter of Abha Tamboli v. State of Chhattisgarh and others (WPS No.6562/2022, decided on 20.06.2024) and other connected matters. 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose. 4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file. 5) In the matter of Union of India v. S.L. Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357 and State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal (2004) 11 SCC 402, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held -3- that who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. 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. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly, if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. 6) In the matter of Abha Tamboli (supra), transfer orders of the similarly situated employees were quashed and the co-ordinate Bench in para 6 made the following observations :- “6. Considering the fact that the transfer is an incident of service, therefore, the impugned transfer order dated 30.09.2022 (Annexure P/1) so far as relates to the petitioners is quashed. However, the State is at liberty to issue afresh transfer order as per rules, if exigency so arises. The issue raised in these petitions are left open and will be decided in appropriate case.” 7) It is well settled that transfer is an incident of service, but it must be in conformity with the statutory rules governing service conditions. 8) Since the cadre of Patwaris is district-based, the petitioner’s transfer beyond the district boundary runs contrary to the scheme of service rules. Such an order, if sustained, would unsettle the seniority and service prospects of the petitioner, which the law does not contemplate. 9) In absence of any enabling provision permitting inter-district transfer, the impugned order cannot be justified. Accordingly, the impugned transfer order -4- dated 30.09.2022 (Annexure P/1), insofar as it relates to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. 10) However, it is made clear that the State shall be at liberty to pass a fresh transfer order in accordance with the law, if the exigency of service so requires. 11)The interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim