2025:CGHC:56728 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 13200 of 2025 1 - Ramavatar Kashyap S/o Bisahu Ram Kashyap Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 7 Post Office Garhwat, Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhatisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralay Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Registrar Co Operative Society, Indrawati Bhawan Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Korba District Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - Assistant Commissioner Cooperative Department/ Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies Korba District Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 21.11.2025 1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the transfer order dated BHUMIKA ANGARE Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2025.11.22 17:01:13 +0530 29.10.2025 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Cooperative Department and Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, whereby he has been transferred from the Paddy Procurement Centre, Nirdhi to the Paddy Procurement Centre, Korbi. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s service is governed by the Prathmik Krishi Sahkari Society ke Sevayukto ke Liye Seva Niyam, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 2018”), which define an “employee” as a person appointed by the Society on fixed pay. Accordingly, he would submit that the petitioner is an employee of the Society. It is further contended that the impugned transfer order is contrary to the Rules of 2018, as an employee appointed on fixed pay cannot be transferred from one Marketing Society to another. Hence, he prays for quashment of the impugned order. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the Deputy Commissioner has issued the transfer order as per the prevailing policy to ensure that there is no pilferage of paddy at the procurement centres during the procurement season. It is therefore submitted that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a contractual employee. He was earlier deployed at the Paddy Procurement Centre, Nirdhi, and has now been temporarily directed to report at Korbi. Considering that the respondents have taken this measure to curb pilferage of paddy which has been uniformly effected across all the computer operators working in Korba District, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been discriminated. In these circumstances, the impugned order does not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Deshmukh