1 2025:CGHC:20761 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7556 of 2022 1 Anurag Sharma S/o Late Shri Narmada Prasad Sharma Aged About 50 Years Working On The Post Of Assistant Engineer, Joint Director Regional Office, Raipur Division, Urban Administration And Development Department, R/o Jagarnath Bhawan, Near Kankali Math, Bramhanpara, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, P.O. And P.S. Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 Under Secretary, Urban Adminstration And Development Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar P.O. And P.S. Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 Director, Directorate Urban Administration And Development Department, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 Joint Director, Urban Administration And Development, Regional Office Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 Municipal Corporation, Birgaon, Through The Commissioner, Birgaon, JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.05.09 17:53:12 +0530 2 District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 6 Municipal Corporatopm, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri V.K. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. For Respondent No. 5 : Shri Sandeep Dubey, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 06/05/2025 Heard. 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner, is seeking quashment of impugned order dated 12.09.2022 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No. 2 whereby the representation of the petitioner was rejected, order dated 30.09.2022 (Annexure P-2) whereby the petitioner was relieved and order dated 24.11.2021 (Annexure P-8) whereby the petitioner has been transferred. 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, is that the petitioner was posted as Sub-Engineer in Nagar Palik Parishad, Birgaon vide order dated 11.05.2006 and later on Nagar Palik Parishad, Birgaon was declared as Municipal Corporation vide notification dated 22.07.20214. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer vide order dated 28.07.2018 and attached in the office of Joint Director, Urban Administration and Development, Regional Office, 3 Raipur and vide order dated 24.11.2021 transferred from Urban Administration and Development, Regional Office, Raipur to Municipal Corporation, Raigarh. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court bearing WPS No. 6784/2021 which was disposed of vide order Dated 04.01.2022 giving liberty to the petitioner to make a detailed representation before the competent authority and directed the authorities to consider and decide the same. In compliance of the order Dated 04.01.2022 passed in WPS No.6784/2021, the petitioner submitted a representation on 10.01.2022. Vide impugned order Dated 12.09.2022, the respondent - authorities rejected the representation of the petitioner & passed the order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has challenged the impugned transfer order on various grounds. First ground raised by petitioner is that the employees of one Municipal Corporation cannot be transferred to another Municipal Corporation as provided under Section 58(5) and 58(6) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. Secondly, her mother who is aged about 70 years and her treatment is going on at Raipur and the transferred place is 250 km away from the present place of posting. He placed reliance upon the judgment passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh : Bench at Indore on 21.03.2018 in the case of Jitendra Shrivastava Vs State of M.P & another in WP No. 4045/2017, wherein service of petitioner was transferred from Municipal Ujjain Corporation to Municipal Corporation Ashoknagar. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, quashed the transfer order by relying upon the order of Full Bench in the case of Indore Nagar Nigam Karmachari Sangh, reported in 1998 (1) MPLJ 449. 4 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that present writ petition is without any substance and deserves to be dismissed as petitioner has failed to demonstrate any infringement of right for which a writ may be issued by this Court. There is no violation of Section 58 (5) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as “the Act of 1956”) in passing the order of the petitioner. The Section 58 (5) of the Act, 1956 empowers the State Government to transfer any officer or servant of a Municipal Corporation to any other Municipal Corporation without consultation of the officer or servant concerned and also of the Corporation concerned. Further, the Act of 1956, Section 58 (6) protects the lien on the post of officer or servant and also protects the pay and allowance as entitled in the parent corporation, therefore, the grounds raised by the petitioner that, the transfer is in violation of the rules and is apprehending of seniority, pay and allowances being adversely affected, is not well-founded and treatment of mother can be done from the place of posting also at Municipal Corporation Raigarh, therefore, it does not seem to create any hindrance in the child's studies, thus, the representation dated 10.01.2022, submitted by the petitioner, is not tenable and hence, rejected. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and another vs. Siya Ram and another, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 405 has held that, transfer, is not only an incident of service, but a condition of service as well and is necessary in public interest and efficiency in public administration. It is further contention of learned State counsel that the impugned order passed by the respondent authorities, is 5 proper, legal, within the jurisdiction and strictly in accordance with law, therefore, there is no infirmity or illegality in the same, the petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merit and substance, thus, deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 also opposes the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and supported the submission made by learned State counsel. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused record as well as the documents appended with the writ petition. 7. Perusal of the record as well as the impugned orders shows that, petitioner, a sub engineer has been transferred from Urban Administration and Development, Regional Office, Raipur to Municipal Corporation, Raigarh. 8. In the first round of litigation, when petitioner challenged the transfer order, this Court directed respondent authorities to consider and decide the representation filed by petitioner within an outer limit of 60 days from the date of submission of the said representation in accordance with the relevant rules and law applicable to the case of petitioner. The petitioner has made specific ground that according to Section 58 (5) and Section 58 (6) of the Act of 1956, petitioner cannot be transferred from one Municipal Corporation to another Municipal Corporation. 9. On conscious appreciation of the grounds raised by the petitioner with respect to Section 58 (5) and Section 58 (6) of the Act of 1956, transfer can be made only on deputation or having taken lien which is not applicable in the present case. On this ground alone, transfer order 6 seems to be not in accordance with law. I do not consider to appreciate other grounds as raised by the petitioner. Transfer order passed by respondent shows that it was neither a deputation order not a lien, as such, transfer order passed in respect of petitioner cannot be said to be in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order 12.09.2022 (Annexure-P/1), order dated 30.09.2022 (Annexure-P/2) and order Dated 24.11.2021 (Annexure-P/8) are liable to be and are hereby quashed. 11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti