The main legal point established is that the State Government's power to transfer a Municipal Corporation employee under Section 58(5) and (6) of the Act of 1956 is limited to deputation to another Municipal Corporation, not to a Nagar Panchayat.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.

1. The petitioner herein takes exception to the impugned order dated 24.11.2021 (Annexure P1) passed by the State Government/respondent No. 1 by which his services have been transferred from Municipal Corporation, Raigarh to Nagar Panchayat, Chandrapur.

2. The petitioner herein is working as Sub-Engineer in Municipal Corporation, Raigarh and his parent Corporation is also Municipal Corporation, Raigarh. It is the case of the petitioner that his parent Corporation being Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, he cannot be transferred to Nagar Panchayat constituted under the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act of 1961’) and at the best, he can be transferred to any other Municipal Corporation on deputation under Section 58(5) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter called as ‘Act of 1956’) and that too subject to the provisions contained in Section 58(6) of the Act of 1956 by which he would have lien on the post held in Parent Municipal Corporation and he will also be entitled for deputation allowance at such rate as the State Government may by general order specify and he will be governed by such other terms and conditions including disciplinary control as the State Government may, by general or special order specify and as such, in the instant case, the petitioner has not been transferred to any other Municipal Corporation by complying the provisions contained in sub-section (6) of Section 58 of the Act of 1956, but he has been transferred to Nagar Panchayat, Chandrapur, which is unsustainable and violative of the provisions contained in Section 58(5) and (6) of the Act of 1956 and therefore, the impugned order dated 24.11.2021 (Annexure P1) passed by respondent No. 1 is liable to be set aside. Apart from that, it is also violative of transfer policy issued by the State Government as no approval has been obtained from coordination from the competent authority and as such, it is liable to be set-aside.

3. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed their return stating that transfer order has been passed on the ground of administrative exigency, it is strictly in accordance with law and it is not violative of the provisions contained in Section 58(5) and (6) of the Act of 1956 and as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. Mr. Vikas Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner being the officer of Municipal Corporation, Raigarh (parent Corporation) had a lien on the post of Sub-Engineer in the said Corporation and he can be transferred by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 58(5) of the Act of 1956 to any other Municipal Corporation on deputation and that too subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (6) of Section 58 of the Act of 1956 and he will be entitled for deputation allowance, but in any case, he cannot be transferred to Nagar Panchayat constituted under the provisions of the Act of 1961. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2/State, would submit that on finding administrative exigency the petitioner's services has been transferred to Nagar Panchayat, Chandrapur, which is strictly in accordance with law and it is not violative of any provisions including Section 58(5) and (6) of the Act of 1956 and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Mrs. Swati Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, would submit that transfer order has been passed by the State Government, therefore, Municipal Corporation has no say on the order of transfer passed by the State Government.

7. None present for respondent No. 4.

8. I have heard learned counsels appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

9. The question for consideration would be, whether the