2025:CGHC:56046 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 11189 of 2025 Reserved on : 26.09 .2025 Delivered on : 18.11.2025 Vinod Kumar Sahu S/o Shyam Lal Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Madhuvan Nagar, Borsi, Durg, Tehsil And District- Durg, C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, C.G. 2 - Director Land Records, Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Block- 2, First Floor Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, C.G. 3 - Collector- Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Committee Of Senior Secretaries Constituted For Redressal Of Grievance Relating To Transfer Case, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, C.G. ... Respondents with WPS No. 11206 of 2025 Prashant Kumar Dubey S/o Late Umapati Dubey Aged About 38 Years R/o Saddu, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, C.G. 2 - Director Land Records, Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Block-2, First Floor, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, C.G 3 - Collector- Raipur District- Raipur, C.G 4 - Committee Of Senior Secretaries Constituted For Redressal Of Grievance Relating To Transfer Case, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, C.G. ... Respondents ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.11.18 16:33:39 +0530 For Petitioners : Mr. Sunil Otwani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. For State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas, J. CAV ORDER 1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in both the writ petitions, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order and WPS No. 11189 of 2025 shall be treated as lead case and the facts of this case, are being taken into consideration while deciding the issue raised in these petitions. 2. The petitioner who is working as Revenue Inspector has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 30.06.2025 passed by respondent No. 1 by which he has been transferred from Office of Collector Land Records Branch, District Raipur to Office of Collector Land Records Branch, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj on administrative ground. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the Committee constituted by the State to consider the representation against the transfer of government servant by which representation preferred by petitioner has been rejected. 3. The brief facts, as reflected from the records are that:- (A) The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Patwari vide order dated 05.08.2010 and was posted at different places in the State of Chhattisgarh. Vide order dated 12.12.2017 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Revenue Inspector and posted in the office of Collector (Nazul Branch), Raipur, District- Raipur till December, 2020 and thereafter, the petitioner was posted in the Office of Revenue Minister, Government of Chhattisgarh from December, 2020 till December, 2023. (B) The petitioner has been transferred vide order dated 02.02.2024 and posted as Revenue Inspector R.N.M Birgaon, Tahsil- Dharsiva, District- Raipur. Vide impugned order dated 30.06.2025, the petitioner’s services have been transferred from the Office of Collector Land Records Branch, District- Raipur to the Office of Collector Land Records Branch, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj on administrative ground. The petitioner preferred a representation on 03.07.2025 regarding his transfer and when the same was not decided, he preferred writ petition before this Court bearing WPS No. 7383/2025 and this Court vide order dated 22.07.2025 directed the Committee to decide the representation of the petitioner and also directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. In pursuance of direction issued by this Court, the Committee constituted by the State to consider the representation against the transfer of government servant, decided the representation of the petitioner by rejecting the same vide order dated 21.08.2025. Hence, this petition has been filed assailing transfer order as well as rejection of his representation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per Clause 3.10 of Transfer Policy, 2025, an employee cannot be transferred who has not completed more than 2 years in the present place of posting and the petitioner is posted at present place of posting since 02.02.2024, as such he has not completed 2 years service at the present place of posting, hence the impugned transfer order is bad-in- law, illegal and against the provisions of law. He would further submit that one similarly situated employee namely Sheetal Das who since her promotion in the year 2018 till today is posted at District- Durg, who raised the similar grounds of violation of transfer policy on the ground has been transferred from Durg to Bhilai within a span of 2 years whereby the Committee has allowed the representation of the petitioner and subsequently quashed the transfer order whereas the same ground raised by the petitioner has not been considered. 5. He would further submit that as per Clause 3.15 of the Transfer Policy, 2025, the employee belongs to Class-III, only 5% of the sanctioned posts can be transferred. In the Raipur District, the posts of Revenue Inspector are 62 and hence, only 5% can be transferred contrary to which about 58 Revenue Inspectors have been transferred out of which around 21 Revenue Inspectors are from District Raipur including the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner’s wife namely Namita Sahu is working on the post of Patwari in District- Bemetara and the proposed place of posting is more than 700 km. away from the present place of positing which will cause serious inconvenience to the petitioner and his family. He would further submit that as per Clause 3.13 of the Transfer Policy, the department has to sympathetically consider posting of husband and wife at same station as far as possible which has not been considered by the respondents. 6. He would further submit that Chapter I of the Land Records Rules (Part-II) deals with transfer of Revenue Inspector and specifically states in Rule 20 (A) (2) that a Revenue Inspector can be transferred from one District to another District only by the Director, Land Records whereas in the present case, the petitioner who is working as Revenue Inspector has been transferred by the Under Secretary, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management. As such, the transfer order is bad in law and liable to be quashed by this Court. It has also been contended that if the statute i.e. Bhu Abhilekh Niyamawali (for short “the Niyamawali”) provides that only Director, Land Records can transfer then the transfer order issued by the Secretary to the Government is against the well settled position of law that if the statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner then it has to be done in that manner and not in any other manner otherwise, the entire action will be bad-in-law. To substantiate this submission, he has referred to the Niyamawali, judgment rendered by this Court in case of Radha Dadsena Vs. High Court of Chhattisgarh [2025 SCC OnLine Chh 6328], the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Dhanush Singh Netam Vs. State of Chhattisgarh [(2020) 2 CGLJ 58], judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Jagannath Singh Solanki Vs. Revenue Department [2023 SCC Online MP 1929] & judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Chandra Kishore Jha Vs. Mahavir Prasad & others [(1999) 8 SCC 266]. 7. He would further submit that as per Clause 1.3 and 2.1 of the circular dated 03.06.2015 governing transfer of employee to scheduled area, since the petitioner has worked for about 4 years in scheduled area, he is entitled to be posted in any place other than the scheduled area. He would further submit that the petitioner has been transferred thrice to different places which shows that the petitioner has been frequently transferred and his transfer is actuated with malafide intention as no one has been transferred in his place and would pray for quashing of the impugned order rejecting the representation against the transfer as well as his transfer order dated 30.06.2025. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner cannot take a plea of discrimination in transfer and posting of other employees as it is prerogative of the employer to transfer and post the employee according to the administrative convenience and exigency. He would further submit that the petitioner cannot enter into jurisdiction of the employer. He would further submit that the transfer order has been issued in accordance with the transfer policy which does not suffer from any malice or arbitrariness. He would further submit that the transfer order does not amount to punishment nor has it been passed on extraneous grounds and it is a routine administrative order issued in the normal course of administration. He would further submit that there is no violation of statutory rule, malafide, or incompetence in issuance of the said order and the impugned order does not suffer from illegality which warrants interference of this Court. It has also been contended that the submission made by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that as per the Niyamawali, the Director (Land Records) can only transfer Revenue Inspectors, as such the transfer by the Secretary Government of Chhattisgarh, is bad in law, deserves to be rejected in view of the fact that the State of Chhattisgarh has amended the Revenue Book Circular (Part-V) Serial No. 1 Clause 16 and has conferred the power to the State Government to transfer any Tahsildar, Naib Tahsildar & Revenue Inspector from one District to another District and the District Collector is empowered to transfer Tahsildar, Naib Tahsildar, Revenue Inspector & Patawari within their District from one Tahsil to another Tahsil. It has also been amended that though the authorities are empowered to transfer which does not dilute the power of the State Government to transfer these government servants vide its circular dated 21.01.2015 and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 10. From submissions made by the parties, the Point emerged for determination of this Court is :- “Whether the impugned transfer order is liable to be quashed on account of incompetency of the State Government to transfer Revenue Inspector.” 11. To determine this Point, it is expedient for this Court to go through with the Niyamawali which provides for transfer and posting of Revenue Inspectors and the same has been amended by the State Government vide order dated 21.06.2015 and following amendments have been made :- “jkT; 'kklu ,rn~ }kjk lanfHkZr ifji= dh dafMdk&2 esa fuEukuqlkj la’kks/ku djrk gS%& dafMdk& 16& 'kklu }kjk izfro"kZ tkjh dh tkus okyh lkekU; LFkkukarj.k uhfr esa fdlh ckr ds gksrs gq, Hkh laHkkxh; vk;qDr yksdfgr esa fdlh Hkh le; vius laHkkx ds Hkhrj ,d ftys ls nwljs ftys esa fdlh rglhynkj] uk;c rglhynkj ,oa jktLo fujh{k.k dk LFkkukarj.k dj ldsaxs rFkk ftyk dysDVj vius ftys ds Hkhrj ,d rglhy ls nwljs rglhy esa fdlh Hkh rglhynkj] uk;c rglhynkj] jktLo fujh{kd ,oa iVokfj;ksa dks LFkkukarj.k dj ldsaxsA fdlh le; fdlh vf/kdkjh vFkok deZpkjh dk LFkkukarj.k] mijksDr vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk fd, tkus ds lkFk gh jkT; 'kklu Lrj ls Hkh LFkkukarj.k vkns’k tkjh gksus dh fLFkfr esa jkT; 'kklu dk vkns’k ekU; gksxkA” 12. From bare perusal of the aforesaid amendment, it is quite vivid that the State Government has been empowered to transfer Revenue Inspectors. The amendment further provides that in case of transfer of Tahsildar, Naib Tahsildar & Revenue Inspector, if the transfer of these officers have been passed by the person who have been empowered to transfer and the State Government has also passed the transfer order then the transfer order passed by the State Government will prevail, which clearly demonstrates the supremacy of the power of the State Government over the power of the Director (Land Records). As such the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the transfer order has been passed by incompetent authority, is liable to be rejected and accordingly it is rejected. 13. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that there is violation of Clause 3.1 of the Transfer Policy while transferring the petitioner. This submission is liable to be rejected in view of the fact that the Transfer Policy does not confer any right to the government servant to remain posted at particular place forever as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of SK Nausad Rahaman & others Vs. Union of India & others [(2022) 12 SCC 1] wherein it has been held in paragraphs 26 & 27 as under:- “26. Third, policies which stipulate that the posting of spouses should be preferably, and to the extent practicable, at the same station are subject to the PART D requirement of the administration. In this context, Justice JS Verma (as the learned Chief Justice then was) speaking for a three-judge Bench of this Court in Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta 24 held : “5. There can be no doubt that ordinarily and as far as practicable the husband and wife who are both employed should be posted at the same station even if their employers be different. The desirability of such a course is obvious. However, this does not mean that their place of posting should invariably be one of their choice, even though their preference may be taken into account while making the decision in accordance with the administrative needs. In the case of all-India services, the hardship resulting from the two being posted at different stations may be unavoidable at times particularly when they belong to different services and one of them cannot be transferred to the place of the other's posting. While choosing the career and a particular service, the couple have to bear in mind this factor and be prepared to face such a hardship if the administrative needs and transfer policy do not permit the posting of both at one place without sacrifice of the requirements of the administration and needs of other employees. In such a case the couple have to make their choice at the threshold between career prospects and family life. After giving preference to the career prospects by accepting such a promotion or any appointment in an all-India service with the incident of transfer to any place in India, subordinating the need of the couple living together at one station, they cannot as of right claim to be relieved of the ordinary incidents of all-India service and avoid transfer to a different place on the ground that the spouses thereby would be posted at different places. […] No doubt the guidelines require the two spouses to be posted at one place as far as practicable, but that does not enable any spouse to claim such a posting as of right if the departmental authorities do not consider it feasible. The only thing required is that the departmental authorities should consider this aspect along with the exigencies of administration and enable the two spouses to live together at one station if it is possible without any detriment to the administrative needs and the claim of other employees.” 27. The above principle was cited with approval in Union of India v. SL Abbas 25 where the Court held that transfer is an incident of service: “7. 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. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right.” ” 14. Further submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is subjected to discrimination and to substantiate this submission, he has referred to the judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Dhanush Singh Netam (supra) and referred to paragraphs 7 & 8 of the judgment which is distinguishable as the petitioner was earlier posted vide order dated 07.07.2024 at Revenue Circle Birgaon Dharsiwa, District- Raipur and prior to it, he was posted in the office of Revenue Minister, Government of Chhattisgarh from December, 2020 till December, 2023 at Raipur only. Thus, he remained posted at Raipur only since December, 2020 to 28.06.2025 for about five years which is more than the posting period permissible to a government servant in a particular place of posting. Thus, the submission made by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that within two years at present place of posting, he has been transferred, deserves to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected. 15. So far as in WPS No. 11206 of 2025 in case of Prashant Kumar Dubey is concerned, it has been contended that the petitioner remained posted at Raipur from 2018 till his transfer on 28.06.2025, thus he remained posted at present place of posting for more than 7 years. As such, the contention made by the petitioner that his transfer is bad in law, deserves to be rejected. It is pertinent to mention here that from perusal of appointment order dated 27.06.2009, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground at Uttar Bastar by the Collector, North Bastar Kanker and thereafter he was promoted as Revenue Inspector on 22.12.2017 and since then he is posted at Raipur only and remained posted at Raipur for more than 7 years and after promotion, this is first posting of the petitioner at triable District, therefore, it cannot be held that the petitioner was again posted in triable District, which is in violation of the Transfer Policy. 16. 16. In view of the above discussion, considering the amendment in the Niyamawali, the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court and considering the entire factual matrix of the case, it is held that the transfer order has been issued by the competent authority and the transfer is incident of service, therefore, the same is not liable to be interfered with by this Court. As such, the Point emerged for determination by this Court deserves to be answered against the petitioners and in favour of the respondents. 17. Accordingly, both the writ petitions challenging the transfer orders as well as rejection of representations, are liable to be dismissed and accordingly, they are dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika / Arun