1 2025:CGHC:55944 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2755 of 2023 1 - Lekhani Kanwar D/o Shrawan Singh Kanwar Aged About 37 Years R/o H/ No. 150, Ward - 16, Mahamaya Chowk, Village Jengra, P.O. Sursabandha, Tehsil Rajim, District Gariabandh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Under Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector, Gariabandh, District Gariabandh, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Upper Collector, Gariabandh, District Gariabandh, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Joint Collector, Gariabandh, District Gariabandh, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Deputy Collector, Gariabandh, District Gariabandh, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Sub - Divisional Officer, Deobhog, District Gariabandh, Chhattisgarh. 8 - Tehsildar, Deobhog, District Gariabandh, Chhattisgarh. 9 - Collector, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 10 - Sub - Divisional Officer, Abhanpur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 11 - Tehsildar, Abhanpur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ritesh Sahu, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, Advocate For State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 17/11/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs : “10.1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased quash the show cause notice dated 18.11.2022 (Annexure P-1) as the same is contrary to Order dated 30.09.2022 passed by respondent No. 2 and is in violation to the Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 10.2) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No. 3 and 7 to forward the Last Pay Certificate, Pass Book, Service Records and other concerned documents of the petitioner to her new place of posting as per transfer Order dated 30.09.2022. 10.3) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate directions to the respondent authorities to release the salary of the petitioner. 10.4) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No. 3 to 8 to comply with Order dated 30.09.2022 passed by respondent No. 2. 10.5) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner, selected as a Patwari in 2016, was instructed to attend the office of Respondent No. 4, the Upper Collector of Gariabandh, with all necessary documents, as per the instructions from the Ministry of Revenue and Disaster Management Department. Following this, she attended the Patwari Training Session in Raipur, and after successful completion of the training, was posted to Tehsil Mainpur in January 2018, and subsequently assigned to various Halka numbers and Tehsils in accordance with departmental requirements. After successfully completing her probation period and training, the petitioner was regularized in May 2022. However, in September 2022, the petitioner was 3 transferred from Gariabandh to Raipur under an order passed by Respondent No. 2. Upon receiving the transfer order, the petitioner sought a relieving order from the concerned authorities in Gariabandh but was not relieved despite making several representations. In compliance with the transfer order, the petitioner marked her presence at her new place of posting in Raipur and handed over the charge of her previous Halka numbers. However, despite complying with the transfer order, a Show Cause Notice was issued to her by Respondent No. 6, alleging that her actions were contrary to the Civil Service Conduct Rules, as she had not been formally relieved from Gariabandh. The petitioner submitted a detailed response to the notice, along with supporting documents, but no efforts were made to relieve her. Despite the issuance of a directive by Respondent No. 2 for the relieving of transferred employees, the petitioner was still not relieved. In contrast, a similarly situated Patwari was relieved as per the order. Moreover, the petitioner has not been paid her salary for the past four months due to the non-forwarding of her service records, passbook, and Last Pay Certificate (LPC) to her new posting. The petitioner, after facing high-handed actions from the respondents, approached this Court with a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking intervention to address the unlawful actions, including the non-issuance of her relieving order and the withholding of her salary, thereby compelling her to approach the Court for redress. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 18.11.2022, issued by Respondent No. 6 (Annexure P- 1), is arbitrary, unlawful, and directly contrary to the transfer order dated 30.09.2022 passed by Respondent No. 2, and as such, it should be quashed by this Court. The petitioner was transferred from the District Gariabandh to the District Raipur as per the order dated 30.09.2022. In compliance with this order, the petitioner approached the concerned authorities and requested the 4 issuance of her relieving order so that she could formally take charge at her new place of posting. However, despite multiple requests, the respondents failed to issue the relieving order, causing undue delay and complications in the process. Instead of facilitating the smooth transfer of petitioner, the respondents' failure to issue the relieving order led to the wrongful issuance of the impugned show cause notice, which threatens the petitioner with departmental inquiry for her actions that were in compliance with the transfer order. This show cause notice was issued solely because the petitioner marked her presence at her new posting in Raipur, but this was done under the clear direction of the order dated 30.09.2022, which instructed transferred employees to take charge immediately. The respondents' actions are entirely at odds with the transfer order and constitute a violation of the rights of petitioner. The actionsb of petitioner in complying with the transfer order were reasonable and lawful, yet Respondent No. 6 has acted in direct contravention of the order by issuing the show cause notice, which is not only arbitrary but also unjustifiable. As per the transfer order, the duty to relieve transferred employees and ensure their proper transition was clearly placed on the concerned authorities, including Respondents No. 3 to 8. However, these authorities completely ignored their obligations under the transfer order, which has caused undue hardship to the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention that when the issue of non-issuance of relieving orders was raised with Respondent No. 2, an explicit directive was issued on 02.12.2022 (Annexure P-16), mandating that all collectors in the state issue relieving orders to transferred employees within seven days. However, despite this directive, Respondents No. 3 and 7 failed to act, further prolonging the petitioner’s suffering and hindering her ability to perform her duties effectively. Moreover, the actions of the respondents in not issuing the relieving order to the petitioner were discriminatory and violated the principles of equality enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution 5 of India. On 22.12.2022, another similarly situated Patwari was relieved in compliance with the transfer order, while the petitioner was unfairly denied the same treatment. This differential treatment is not only arbitrary but also illegal, as there is no justifiable reason for such disparate treatment between employees in similar circumstances. It is further submitted that the petitioner was issued the show cause notice for complying with the transfer order, even though she had not been officially relieved from her previous posting. The transfer order dated 30.09.2022 made it clear that the concerned authorities were responsible for relieving the petitioner immediately upon issuance of the order. However, since Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 failed to relieve the petitioner, she took the only available course of action by marking her presence at her new place of posting, as per the directive in the transfer order. The respondents’ subsequent issuance of the show cause notice is, therefore, not only unjust but also legally untenable. Furthermore, the failure of the respondents to relieve the petitioner and forward her service records to her new place of posting has resulted in significant financial hardship for the petitioner. Despite reporting at her new posting and carrying out her duties diligently, the petitioner has not been paid her monthly salary for the past four months. This is because Respondent Nos. 3 and 7 have not forwarded her Last Pay Certificate (LPC), Pass Book, and Service Records to her new office, thus preventing the disbursement of her salary. This non-payment of salary has created severe financial distress for the petitioner, making it difficult for her to carry out her day-to-day work. The petitioner has made repeated representations, including one to the Secretary of the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, requesting the necessary action to forward her service records so that her salary could be released. However, her requests have gone unanswered, leaving her in a state of uncertainty and hardship. The petitioner submits that she has been performing her duties with utmost sincerity and has complied with all orders issued by the 6 respondents. Despite this, the failure of the concerned authorities to forward her service records and issue the relieving order has prevented her from fully transitioning to her new posting and receiving her rightful salary. This prolonged delay and the respondents’ failure to adhere to the clear directives of the transfer order have caused undue harm to the petitioner, both financially and professionally. In light of the above, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned show cause notice issued by Respondent No. 6 is legally flawed and should be quashed. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that the present petition is premature and should be dismissed. The petitioner has not exhausted the available administrative remedies and has approached this Court without allowing the concerned authorities to complete the necessary procedural actions. The show cause notice issued by Respondent No. 6 is a part of the ongoing administrative process, and the petitioner has been given an opportunity to respond. The grievance raised by petitioner regarding salary non-payment is linked to procedural compliance, including being officially relieved from her previous posting, which has not yet occurred due to the failure of petitioner to follow the formalities. As the matter is still within the administrative domain, judicial intervention at this stage is not warranted. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the petition. 6. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking various reliefs, including the quashing of the Show Cause Notice dated 18.11.2022 issued by Respondent No. 6, a direction for the forwarding of the petitioner’s service records, passbook, and Last Pay Certificate (LPC), and a direction for the release of her salary. The petitioner has raised concerns regarding the non- issuance of her relieving order, the wrongful show cause notice issued against her, and the non-payment of her salary due to administrative delays. 7 However, after considering the submissions, it appears that the matter is still within the administrative domain, and the petitioner has not exhausted the available administrative remedies. The show cause notice issued by Respondent No. 6 is part of an ongoing administrative process, and the petitioner has been provided an opportunity to respond. Moreover, the petitioner has not been formally relieved from her previous posting, and the procedural requirements for forwarding her service records, passbook, and LPC are still being processed. The failure of the concerned authorities to act in accordance with the transfer order, although regrettable, is part of the administrative process that needs to be completed. 7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the instant petition, at this stage, is premature and, therefore, does not warrant adjudication on merits. 8. In the interest of justice and to safeguard the rights of the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to reserve liberty for the petitioner to raise and agitate the issues involved herein at an appropriate stage, if any exigency or cause of action arise in the future. 9. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Shayna (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE