1 2026:CGHC:17307 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9 of 2025 1 - Netram Chandrakar S/o Late Naturam Chandrakar Aged About 59 Years Presently Posted As Chief Municipal Officer, At Municipal Council Kumhari District Durg ( Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Departmeent Of Urban Administration And Development ,mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Directrate Of Urban Administration And Development Mantralay, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Saurabh Bajpai Incharge Chief Municipal Officer At Nagar Panchayat Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - The Municipal Council, Kumhari Through Its Chief Muncipal Officer Kumhari District Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiyan, Government Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Alok Chandra Rishi, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 15/04 /2026 1. Notice sent to the Respondent No. 3 is reported to be served, however, there is no representation on his behalf. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- 2 “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 26.12.2024 (Annexure P/1 & P/2) with respect to petitioner and Respondent No. 3. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 26.12.2024 (Annexure P/1) whereby, the petitioner who is working on the post of Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council Kumhari, District – Durg is transferred as Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Raipur, District – Raipur. Further challenge is to the order dated 26.12.2024 (Annexure P/2) whereby, the Respondent No. 3 is also transferred from Incharge, Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Patan, District – Durg to Municipal Council Kumhari as Incharge, Chief Municipal Officer. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an employee of the Municipalities and therefore, if at all the employees of one Municipality is to be transferred, then, they can only be posted to Municipal Corporation as per law. According to provision under Section 86 (4) of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Act, 1961), the State Government is having the power and jurisdiction to transfer any employee of the municipal service from one council to another council. There is no provision under the Act, 1961 that the State Government can transfer the employee from the Municipality to the Municipal Corporation. 5. He also contended that earlier, petitioner was posted in Municipal Corporation Raipur, but that was by way of deputation as the Municipal Corporation is a different organization. He also contended that the impugned transfer order has been passed few months after his repatriation to the Municipal Council Kumhari vide order dated 07.03.2024 (Annexure P/5) from deputation. He submits that from perusal of the order 3 dated 07.03.2024 (Annexure P/5), it is explicitly clear that if the employee of the Municipality is to be posted in Municipal Corporation, then, it can only be by way of deputation and not by transfer and therefore, the order dated 26.12.2024 (Annexure P/1) which the transfer and posting of the petitioner from Municipal Council to Municipal Corporation even on administrative ground is not permissible and accordingly, it be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State would submit that reply to the writ petition has been filed on the ground that there is no bar under the Act, 1961 to transfer an employee of the Municipalities to the Municipal Corporation. He also submits that petitioner is an employee and therefore, the posting/transfer which is on administrative ground in any manner need not be interfered in ordinary course. Transfer of the petitioner is an incident of service and therefore, there is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly, it be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4 submits that the order of posting of the petitioner is passed by the State Government and therefore, the State Government is the contesting party in the present case. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 9. It is not disputed by the counsel for the Respondent/State that the petitioner is an employee of Municipal Council Kumhari. From the order dated 07.03.2024 (Annexure P/5), it is apparent that the petitioner being an employee of Municipal Council Kumhari was posted as Zone Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Raipur on deputation. He was repatriated only on 07.03.2024. 10.The provision under Section 86 (4) of the Act, 1961 which provides the authority upon the State Government to transfer an employee of the 4 Municipalities from one municipal council to another only. It does not mention any provision of transfer/posting of an employee of the Municipal Council to the Municipal Corporation. Perusal of the provision under Section 58 (5) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Act, 1956) would show that it provides the authority upon the State Government to transfer an employee from municipal corporation to another only. In both the acts i.e. the Act, 1961 and the Act, 1956, there is clear provision of posting of an employee from one municipal council to another as also, from municipal corporation to another. There is no provision in either of the Acts, that an employee of the Municipalities can be posted on transfer to Municipal Corporation or vice-versa. 11.From the order dated 26.12.2024 (Annexure P/1), it can only be culled out that though the posting of the employees named therein is on administrative ground as mentioned, however, it is by way of transfer. In the aforementioned facts of the case and the relevant provisions as discussed above in particular Section 86 (4) of the Act, 1961 and Section 58 (5) of the Act, 1956, I am of the considered view that the transfer of the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order dated 26.12.2024 (Annexure P/1) and posting at Municipal Corporation Raipur is without any authority of law and therefore, it is not sustainable. Accordingly, the order dated 26.12.2024 (Annexure P/1) so far as it relates to the petitioner is liable to be and is accordingly, quashed. 12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands allowed. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY