1 CGHC010271242026 2026:CGHC:36957 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5495 of 2026 Smt. Fatima Begum D/o Mahboob Ali Aged About 47 Years Occupation Patwari, Presently Posted At P.H. No. 29, Loharsi, Tahsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.) Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector (Land Records) District Dhamtari (C.G.) 3 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anurag Verma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, PL (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 18/08/2026 1. By way of the present Writ Petition, the petitioner is questioning the impugned transfer order dated 03.07.2026 (Annexure-P/1), whereby he has been transferred from Patwari Halka No. 29, Loharsi to Patwari Halka No. 25, Ranwa on administrative grounds. The petitioner also RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.08.19 16:56:47 +0530 2 seeks a direction to the respondents to permit him to continue at his present place of posting. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner assumed charge at his present place of posting, i.e. P.H. No. 29, Loharsi, on 20.01.2025 pursuant to the order dated 27.12.2024. He would further submit that, as on the date of issuance of the impugned order, the petitioner had not completed three years at the present place of posting and had served there for only about one and a half years. According to learned counsel, the impugned order has been passed only to accommodate certain employees who had sought transfer on their own request. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, would submit that the impugned order has been passed on account of administrative exigency and not on the ground that the petitioner had completed three years at his present place of posting. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From a perusal of Annexure-P/1, it appears that four employees have been transferred by order dated 03.07.2026 on the premise that they had completed three years of service at their respective present places of posting. However, from the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioner joined at his present place of posting on 20.01.2025 pursuant to the order dated 27.12.2024. Thus, as on the date of the 3 impugned order, the petitioner had completed only about one and a half years at the said place of posting. 6. It, therefore, appears that the impugned order, insofar as it relates to the petitioner, has been passed on an incorrect factual premise that he had completed three years of service at his present place of posting. The order, to that extent, reflects non-application of mind on the part of the competent authority and, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. 7. Accordingly, the impugned transfer order dated 03.07.2026 (Annexure- P/1), insofar as it relates to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. 8. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul