1 CGHC010452272025 2026:CGHC:42604 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 12464 of 2025 Kaushal Yadav S/o Late Shri Ramesh Kumar Yadav Aged About 40 Years R/o Rama Life City, T-13, Phase-3,sakri, District Bilaspur C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 – State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Disrict Raipur C.G. 2 - Collector, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. 3 - Collector, District Bilaspur C.G. 4 - Tehsildar, Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. 5 - Tehsildar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. V.R. Tiwari, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Vaibhav P. Shukla, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 30/09/2026 1. The petitioner has called in question the order dated 25.07.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby his representation seeking restoration of his posting in District Bilaspur has been rejected. The petitioner has also ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.10.01 17:51:38 +0530 2 challenged the transfer order dated 30.09.2022 (Annexure P-3), whereby he was transferred from P.H. No.30, Mopka, Tehsil and District Bilaspur to the office of Collector, Land Records, District Janjgir-Champa. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is working as a Patwari, was initially appointed in District Bilaspur. By order dated 30.09.2022 (Annexure P-3), the petitioner was transferred from P.H. No.30, Mopka, District Bilaspur to the office of Collector, Land Records, District Janjgir-Champa. The said transfer was shown to have been made on the petitioner's own request. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner challenged the aforesaid transfer order by filing W.P.(S) No.1797 of 2024, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 24.05.2024, directing the respondent-authority to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner within a period of 30 days. Pursuant thereto, the representation of the petitioner was decided by order dated 25.07.2025 (Annexure P-1). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the representation has been rejected on the ground that the post of Patwari is a district cadre post and, therefore, an employee belonging to the district cadre cannot be transferred outside the district. He submits that, while considering the representation, the respondents have not considered the specific contention of the petitioner that he had never applied for his transfer from District Bilaspur to District Janjgir-Champa. Learned counsel submits that, therefore, the very basis of the transfer order dated 30.09.2022, which records that the transfer was made on the petitioner's own request, is incorrect. He further submits that the subsequent application submitted by the 3 petitioner for mutual transfer cannot be treated as an admission that the original transfer was made at his request. Learned counsel further submits that the representation has also been rejected on the ground that there was no vacant post of Patwari in District Bilaspur. However, the information supplied to the petitioner under the RTI Act shows that eight posts of Patwari were lying vacant in District Bilaspur. It is submitted that this aspect has also not been properly considered by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the order dated 30.09.2022, as well as the order dated 25.07.2025 rejecting the petitioner's representation, deserve to be quashed. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the post of Patwari is a district cadre post and transfer of an employee belonging to the district cadre outside the district cannot be made in terms of the applicable transfer policy. He further submits that the petitioner has already joined at District Janjgir-Champa and that there was no vacant post available at Bilaspur. Therefore, the representation has rightly been rejected. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. From perusal of the order dated 30.09.2022, it appears that the petitioner's transfer has been shown to have been made on his own request. However, the petitioner has specifically stated in his representation that he had never applied for such transfer. The aforesaid specific contention of the petitioner has not been considered while deciding his representation. The representation has been rejected primarily on the ground that the post of Patwari is a district cadre post 4 and that there was no vacant post at Bilaspur. Thus, the material contention as to whether the petitioner had, in fact, made any request for his transfer from Bilaspur to Janjgir-Champa has not been considered. 6. In view of the above, the order dated 30.09.2022 (Annexure P-3), insofar as it concerns the petitioner, and the order dated 25.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and pass an appropriate order, by posting the petitioner in District Bilaspur on the available post at District Bilaspur, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu