1 CGHC010271862026 2026:CGHC:30255 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5383 of 2026 Abrar Khan S/o A.B. Khan Aged About 34 Years Posted As Sub- Engineer, At Municipal Corporation Raipur, District - Raipur, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 2 - Deputy Secretary Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 3 - Municipal Corporation Raipur Through Its Commissioner District Raipur, C.G. 4 - Municipal Corporation Jagdalpur Through Its Commissioner, District Bastar, C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.07.16 17:29:35 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) :Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Zainab Mustafa Vanak, Advocate For Respondent(s) :Shri Gary Mukhopadhyay, Addl. Advocate General For Respondent No. 3 :Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 16.07.2026 1. By the present petition, under Article 226, the petitioner seeks quashment of the posting order dated 11.07.2026, wherein, the petitioner has been transferred from Municipal Corporation Raipur to Municipal Council Jagdalpur on the post of Sub-Engineer. In the said order his name is at serial No. 52. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that initially the petitioner appointed as Sub-Engineer and posted at Raipur. According to the petitioner by order dated 11.07.2026, the petitioner has been transferred from Raipur to Jagdalpur by assigning the reason of administrative exigency. Learned counsel would submit that the employees of one Municipal Corporation cannot be transferred to another Municipal Corporation as provided under Section 58(5) and (6) of the Municipal Corporation Act 1956. In support of his contention, 3 learned counsel would place reliance upon the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in the matter 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. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel as also the learned counsel for the corporation 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 4 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. In support of their contention, they placed reliance upon the 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 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 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused record as well as the documents appended with the writ petition. 5. Perusal of the record as well as the impugned orders shows that, petitioner, a sub engineer has been transferred from Municipal Corporation Raipur to Municipal Council Jagdalpur. 6. 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, whereas in the present case, the order impugned is purely a transfer order. Hence on this ground alone, transfer of the petitioner is contrary to the provisions of the Act 1956. Transfer order passed by respondent shows that it was neither a deputation order nor a lien, as such, transfer order passed in respect of petitioner cannot be said to be in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order 11.07.2026, (Annexure P/1), in respect of the petitioner is hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the State/respondents that, if they so desire or if any 6 administrative exigency so requires, they may send the petitioner on deputation in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1956. sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib