SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Chh) 139

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.
Smt. Neha Dewangan W/o Shri Mukesh Dewangan - Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 1648 of 2024, WPS No. 1652 of 2024
Decided on : 26-06-2024

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Somkant Verma, Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Mr. R.S. Baghel and Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. S.S. Baghel and Mrs. Shailaja Shukla, Mr. Vivek Siddarth Ojha, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment clarified the distinction between transfer and deputation, emphasizing that transfer is an incident of service and can be made based on administrative exigency, without requiring the employee's consent.

Headnote:

Transfer - Service Conditions - Chhattisgarh Fundamental Rules, 2013 - F.R. 110, 111 - Cadre defined - Transfer vs Deputation - Legal interpretation of 'cadre' and 'deputation' - Consent requirement for deputation - Administrative exigency for transfer

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, Assistant Project Officers, challenged their transfer orders on the grounds that it was a deputation requiring their consent, and that the transfer was outside their cadre without consent, violating service rules.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioners were not sent on deputation, but were simply transferred within their department and cadre, thus not requiring their consent. The court also emphasized that transfer is an incident of service and can be made based on administrative exigency.

Issues: Whether the petitioners were sent on deputation or transferred within their cadre without consent, and whether the transfer was in violation of service rules.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the meaning of 'cadre' and 'deputation' in service law, emphasizing that transfer is an incident of service and can be made based on administrative exigency. It concluded that the petitioners were not sent on deputation, and their consent was not required for the transfer.

Final Decision: Both writ petitions were dismissed, as the court found them devoid of merit. The petitioner in one case was directed to make a representation before the respondent authority to raise her grievances.

ORDER :

1. Since an identical issue and common facts of law are involved in both the cases, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioner Smt. Neha Dewangan in Writ Petition (S) No 1648 of 2024 and the petitioner Smt. Indira Bhagat in Writ Petition (S) No 1652 of 2024 who are working as Assistant Project Officers, have filed these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 6-3-2024 passed by the respondent No.1 whereby the services of the petitioner Smt. Neha Dewangan have been transferred from the office of Jila Panchayat Bastar to Incharge Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Pancahyat, Tilda, District Raipur whereas the services of the petitioner Smt. Indira Bhagat have been transferred from Zila Pancahyat Koba District Korba to Janpad Panchayat, Malkharoda, District Janjgir Champa.

3. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions assailing the transfer order on the count that the impugned order dated 6-3-2024 is not a transfer order but it is a deputation, as such their consent is required. It has also been contended that in their appointment order dated 28-2- 2017 (Annexure P/2) in the Clause No.7, it has been mentioned that their posting will not be done in the field office, accordingly, the petitioner was posted in the office of Zila Panchayat. Similar terms and conditions have been mentioned in the appointment order of the petitioner Smt. Indira Bhagat in WP(S) No. 1652 of 2024 who was appointed as Assistant Project Officer on 8-6-2017.

4. Mr. Somkant Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(S) No. 1648 of 2024 would submit that the impugned order is not a transfer order, but it is a deputation, therefore, petitioner's consent is required and respondent No.1 shifted to the petitioners in the field office and out of office of Jila Panchayat, thus action of respondent No.1 suffers from mala fide. Learned counsels for the petitioners would further submit that the State has framed policy on 12-8-2022 and the respondents have issued transfer policy for all the departments whereby certain conditions have been mentioned in the transfer policy which provides ban period and the present petitioners have been transferred in a ban period without coordination of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, therefore, transfer order is bad-in-law and would pray for quashing of the impugned order. It has also been contended that the petitioner being employee of Zila Panchayat cadre, she cannot be posted outside of the cadre without her consent, as such the impugned order is bad-in-law.

5. Mr. R.S. Baghel learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(S) No. 1652 2024 apart from the grounds raised in WP(S) No. 1648 of 2024, would submit that the petitioner has been recently transferred on 29-10-2023 from Zila Panchayat, Balrampur Ramanujganj to Zila Panchayat, Korba as Assistant Project Officer and within a short period of six months again she has been transferred by the impugned order. He would further submit that as per the set up declared by the Development Commissioner on 6-5-2023, 89 posts have been set up in the office of District Panchayat out of which 43 posts have to be filled up from deputation and remaining 41 posts have to be filled up from direct recruitment. He would further submit that since the petitioner has been appointed directly on the post of Assistant Project Officer vide order dated 8-6-2017 and since her appointment was made for District Panchayat, she cannot be posted in the field office, therefore, the impugned order dated 6-3-2024 (Annexure P/1) is badin- law.

6. The petitioners have filed additional documents also along with the gradation list as on 1-4-2020 of the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat and would submit that the petitioners have been shifted to out of cadre without obtaining their consent as the posts of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat and Assistant Project Officer are different posts and their seniority maintained

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

              Please visit our Training & Support
              Center or Contact Us for assistance

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top