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
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
A.K. Subraman and Others vs. Union of India and Others [1975 (1) SCC 319]
Dr. Chakradhar Paswan vs. State of Bihar and Others [1988 (2) SCC 214]
Jarnail Singh and others vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta and others
Prasar Bharti and others vs. Amarjeet Singh and others
Ran Singh Malik vs. State of Haryana and others
State of Punjab and others vs. Inder Singh and others
State of Maharashtra vs. Purshottam and Others [1996 (9) SCC 266]
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 emp....
Point of law: Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings Under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unr....
Consent is not required for posting to a government-controlled body, and the equivalence of posts negates claims of adverse impact on service conditions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer of the petitioner was found to be in compliance with the statutory rules governing the service, recommended by the Civil Services....
Appointments on deputation do not confer a right to continue beyond the specified term, and the distinction between transfer and appointment on deputation is significant.
A deputationist has no vested right and can be repatriated for valid reasons, and public interest and administrative exigencies are valid grounds for transfer.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.