Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 29484 (CHH)

PITAMBER BAGH v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/6378/2021 · 2026-07-26

Shri Sanjay K Agrawal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010302642021 2026:CGHC:31958 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6378 of 2021 1 - Pitamber Bagh S/o Late Shri Sodhan Bagh Aged About 40 Years Presently Posted As Cleaning Worker At Nager Palika Parishad, Saraipali, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh R/o Bazar Para, Ward No. 11, Saraipali, Tahsil Saraipali, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Urban Administration And Development Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Deputy Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Nagar Palika Parishad Saraipali Through Chief Municipal Officer, Saraipali District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Imran Ahmed Khan on behalf of Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocates For Respondent(s) No. 1 and 2/State : Dr. Surendra Dewangan, P.L. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Utkarsh Shrivas, Advocate 2 SB – Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 27/07/2026 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30/09/2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 2 thereby transferring the services of the petitioner from the Nagar Palika Parishad, Saraipali to the Nagar Palika Parishad, Mahasamund. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Class- IV employee working as a Safai Karmchari in Municipal Council, Saraipali and he has been transferred by the State Government, which is without jurisdiction and without authority of law in view of the provisions contained in the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968 and therefore, the impugned transfer is without jurisdiction and without authority of law. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned order and submit that the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 3 5. Admittedly, petitioner is a Class- IV employee working as a Safai Karmchari in Municipal Council, Saraipali and he has been transferred by the State Government but in view of the provision contained in Madhya Pradesh Municipal Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968, the same is unsustainable and bad in law as his appointing authority is Municipal Council where he was was originally appointed. Moreover, this Court, vide order dated 22/11/2021, had already directed that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner. As such, the impugned transfer order dated 30/09/2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed. However, respondent No. 3/competent authority is at liberty to pass a fresh order, if exigency so arises. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No cost(s). (Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE Harneet