ORDER :

Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.

1. Since an identical issue is involved in both these writ petitions, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioner in WPS No. 5098/2022 has filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 15-7-2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Circle-1, Durg, whereby the petitioner Rajesh Banjari has been transferred from Patwari Halka No. 50 Kurud District Durg to Patwari Halka No.15 Arasnara, District- Durg. The petitioner in WPS No. 4893/2022 has filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 17-6-2022 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pendraroad, District Gourela, Pendra, whereby the petitioner Janardan Mandal in WPS No.4893 of 2022 has been transferred from Patwari Halka No.1 Pendra to Patwari Halka No.06 newly established Tahsil Sakola, District- Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi.

3. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that in WPS No.4893 of 2022 the petitioner was earlier posted as Patwari at Patwari Halka No.18 Kudkai and vide order dated 19-11-2021, he was posted at Patwari Halka No. 01 Pendra. Thereafter vide impugned order dated 7-6-2022 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, he has been posted at Patwari Halka No.06 Sakola. Similarly, in WPS No. 5098 of 2022, the petitioner Rajesh Banjari was earlier posted as Pawari at Patwari Halka No.19-A/50 Kurud and has been transferred to Patwari Halka No.15 Arasnara vide order dated 15-7-2022 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Durg.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the transfer is bad-in-law as according to the petitioners, posting of Patwari is made for a particular Patwari Halka which normally comprises two Gram Panchayats. As per Section 104(2) of the CG Land Revenue Code 1959 (For short, the Code 1959), the Collector is the appointing authority and power of posting, power of dismissal, termination and also suspension, transfer of the Patwaris lies with the Collector whereas in the present case, the posting order has been issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, who is not a competent authority, therefore, the transfer/posting order is without jurisdiction and non-est. To substantiate their submissions, learned counsels for the petitioners would refer to Clause 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1957, copy of order dated 12-9-2014 passed by the Secretary, Revenue and also referred to Rule 7 of Patwari Manual and would further submit that the transfer/posting is in contravention of the existing transfer policy dated 27-6-2019. To buttress their submissions, they have also referred to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 811 of 2019 (Khushboo Tiwari vs State of Chhattisgarh & others) decided 14-12-2018 and WPS No 7050 of 2019 (Vijay Soni vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) decided on 4-9-2019 and would submit that in view of the order passed by the Division Bench of this court, since the transfer is bad in law, the same may kindly be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that shifting from one head quarter to another head quarter is also a transfer, therefore, as per Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Joining) Rules 1982 which have been made applicable to the State of CG is a transfer and has been issued by incompetent person, therefore, it is bad in law. He would refer to Section 2(b) of the Rules 1982 which reads as under.

^^¼2½¼[k½^^LFkkukUrj.k** ls vfHkizsr gS fdlh 'kkldh; lsod dk] ;k rks mlh LVs'ku ds Hkhrj ;k fdlh vU; LVs'ku dks ,d in ls nwljs in ij u;s in dk drZO; xzg.k djus ds fy;s ;k mldk eq[;ky; ifjofrZr gks tkus ds ifj.kkeLo:i tkuk ^^A

6. Learned counsels for the petitioners would further submit that since the head quarter is changed, therefore, it is a transfer. As per Fundamental Rule 132 (A)(1) of the Rules 1982, if Patwari travels beyond eight kms, for official work, then he