1 2026:CGHC:13979 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1359 of 2022 * - Sohan Gupta S/o Mohan Lal Gupta Aged About 31 Years Presently Working As Sub Engineer At Municipal Corporation, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Urban Administration and Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director, Urban Administration And Development Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Municipal Corporation Raipur Through The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Nagar Panchayat Rajim, Through - The Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Rajim, District Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 For Respondent No. 3 : : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24/03/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside order dated 21.02.2022 (Annexure P/1) whereby the petitioner has been transferred to Nagar Panchayat Rajim, District Gariyaband (C.G.) 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to work in the present place of posting i.e. Municipal Corporation Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.03.25 20:08:40 +0530 2 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2. Mr. C.J.K. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that initially petitioner was appointed as Sub Engineer at Municipal Corporation, Raipur vide order dated 09.02.2016. He would contend that the services of the petitioner were transferred from Municipal Corporation, Raipur to Nagar Panchayat Rajim vide order dated 21.02.2022 which is not permissible according to Service Rules. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed in the matter of Dileep Kumar Uranw Vs. State of Chhattisgarh passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 6833 of 2021 dated 14/1/2022. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the instant petition. 5. In the matter of Dileep Kumar Uranw (supra), the coordinate Bench has held that State Government has no power in its jurisdiction to transfer the services of officer or servant of Municipal Corporation to Nagar Panchayat. The relevant paragraphs no. 11 and 12 are reproduced herein below:- “11. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provisions would show that the State Government has been empowered to transfer any officer or servant of the Municipal Corporation to any other Municipal Corporation only on deputation and rights of the officer or servant so transferred under sub-section (5) would be subject to conditions prescribed in sub- section (6) of Section 58 of the Act of 1956, which states as under:- 3 “(6) The officer or servant transferred under sub- section (5) shall :- (a) have his lien on the post held in the parent Corporation; (b) not be put to disadvantageous position in respect of pay and allowances which he would have been entitled to had he continued in the parent Corporation; (c) be entitled to deputation allowance at such rate as the State Government may be general order specify; and (d) be governed by such other terms conditions including disciplinary control as the State Government may, by general or special order, specify. ” 12. Sub-section (6) of Section 58 of the Act of 1956 clearly provides that the officer or servant so transferred under sub-section (5) shall have his lien on the post held in the parent Corporation and he will not be put to disadvantageous position in respect of pay and allowances which he would have been entitled to had he continued in the parent Corporation and he will be entitled to deputation allowance at such rate as the State Government may be general order specify.” 6. Taking into consideration the facts of the case and the law laid down in the matter of Dileep Kumar Uranw (supra), the transfer order dated 21.02.2022 pertaining to the petitioner is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. 7. The interim order granted earlier is hereby vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti