The Chhattisgarh High Court clarifies that reassigning a government employee’s charge within the same Tahsil—such as changing a Patwari’s Halka number—does not amount to a transfer under service law; such decisions, when based on administrative exigency, are not subject to judicial interference unless shown to be perverse or illegal. This holding affirms established precedent and is binding on all subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPS/10408/2025 of ROHIT KUMAR BAGHEL Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010378912025 |
| Date of Registration | 01-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OFF |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing understanding of administrative power regarding assignment within Tahsil |
| Type of Law | Service Law – Transfer & Posting |
| Questions of Law | Whether assignment of a new Patwari Halka number within the same Tahsil constitutes a transfer? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that where a government servant remains posted in the same Tahsil, merely having their charge shifted from one Patwari Halka to another does not amount to a transfer from one place to another. Such intra-Tahsil assignments, when made for administrative exigency and smooth office functioning, do not constitute frequent transfers and do not require judicial interference unless they are shown to be perverse or illegal. The court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned order assigning Patwari Halka No. 1, Kolaval, to the petitioner. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner was transferred from Tahsil Bakawand to Tahsil Karpawand by order on 10.07.2025, and joined on 16.07.2025. Subsequently, by order dated 21.08.2025, his charge was shifted from Patwari Halka No. 8 (Karpawand) to Patwari Halka No. 1 (Kolaval) within the same Tahsil, which he challenged as a ‘frequent transfer.’ |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | High Courts of other States and similar administrative tribunals |
| Follows | Affirms the settled law distinguishing transfer from intra-Tahsil assignment of charges |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The court reaffirms that administrative reassignment within a Tahsil, such as shifting a Patwari from one Halka to another, does not constitute a ‘transfer’ for the purpose of service law challenges.
- Challenges to such orders alleging frequent transfer will not succeed unless transfer is across Tahsils or there is demonstrable illegality or perversity.
- Lawyers representing government employees in Chhattisgarh should distinguish between full transfers and internal administrative allocation of duties when advising on legal remedies.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined whether changing the Patwari Halka number within the same Tahsil amounted to a frequent transfer.
- It noted the petitioner remained in the same Tahsil and that the impugned order changed only the area of work (from Halka No. 8 to Halka No. 1).
- The court found this to be an administrative action done for exigency and smooth functioning, not a transfer to another place.
- No perversity or illegality was found in the administrative action.
- The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Contended that the reassignment from Halka No. 8 to Halka No. 1 within a month amounted to a frequent transfer.
- Argued hardship due to the frequent change of posting.
Respondent (State)
- Asserted that only the Halka was changed, not the Tahsil of posting.
- Justified the order as an action taken for administrative exigency.
- Stated there was no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
Factual Background
The petitioner is a Patwari in the Revenue Department. He was transferred from Tahsil Bakawand to Tahsil Karpawand on 10.07.2025 and joined at Karpawand on 16.07.2025. On 21.08.2025, his assigned area was changed from Patwari Halka No. 8 (Karpawand) to Patwari Halka No. 1 (Kolaval), both within Karpawand Tahsil. The petitioner challenged this as an instance of frequent transfer causing hardship.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment discusses the administrative power of posting and assignment within the revenue administration, particularly focusing on whether reassigning a Patwari’s Halka within the same Tahsil amounts to a transfer.
- No statutory provision was interpreted expansively or narrowly beyond reaffirming that only change of place or Tahsil amounts to transfer for legal challenge purposes.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions recorded; judgment is by a single judge.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines were issued in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms existing law that intra-Tahsil assignments do not amount to transfers.
Citations
- 2025:CGHC:44900
- NAFR (Not Approved For Reporting)