Order on Board

1. By the present petition, under Article 226, the petitioner seeks quashment of the posting order dated 11.07.2026, wherein, the petitioner has been transferred from Municipal Corporation Raipur to Municipal Council Akaltara, Distt, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) on the post of Sub-Engineer. In the said order his name is at serial No. 28.

2. According to the petitioner by order dated 11.07.2026, the petitioner has been transferred from Raipur to Akaltara by assigning the reason of administrative exigency. Though, no pleading with respect to violation of Section 58(5) & (6) of the Act, 1956 has been made in the writ petition, during the course of arguments, learned counsel would submit that the employees of one Municipal Corporation cannot be transferred to another Municipal Corporation as provided under Section 58(5) and (6) of the Municipal Corporation Act 1956. In support of her contention, learned counsel would place reliance upon the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in the matter of Jitendra Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. & another in WP No. 4045/2017, wherein service of petitioner was transferred from Municipal Ujjain Corporation to Municipal Corporation Ashoknagar. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, quashed the transfer order by relying upon the order of Full Bench in the case of Indore Nagar Nigam Karmachari Sangh , reported in 1998 (1) MPLJ 449. Learned counsel would raise another ground that the mother of the petitioner is suffering from several ailment and no body is there to take care of her. She would submit that if the petitioner, has been transferred to a place which is situated at a distance of about 150 km from the present place of posting, the petitioner as also his entire family shall suffer irreparably including the newly born child of the petitioner.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel as also the learned counsel for the corporation opposes the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that present writ petition is without any substance and deserves to be dismissed as petitioner has failed to demonstrate any infringement of right for which a writ may be issued by this Court. There is no violation of Section 58 (5) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as "the Act of 1956") in passing the order of the petitioner. The Section 58 (5) of the Act, 1956 empowers the State Government to transfer any officer or servant of a Municipal Corporation to any other Municipal Corporation without consultation of the officer or servant concerned and also of the Corporation concerned. Further, the Act of 1956, Section 58 (6) protects the lien on the post of officer or servant and also protects the pay and allowance as entitled in the parent corporation, therefore, the grounds raised by the petitioner that, the transfer is in violation of the rules and is apprehending of seniority, pay and allowances being adversely affected, is not well-founded. In support of their contention, they placed reliance upon the the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and another vs. Siya Ram and another , reported in (2004) 7 SCC 405 has held that, transfer, is not only an incident of service, but a condition of service as well and is necessary in public interest and efficiency in public administration. It is further contention of learned State counsel that t