Chhattisgarh HC Quashes Transfer of Sub-Engineer Between Municipal Corporations, Holds It Contrary to Section 58 of the Act

The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur held that inter-corporation transfers of municipal employees are permissible only by way of deputation or lien, not by a plain transfer order.

The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has quashed an order transferring a sub-engineer from Municipal Corporation Raipur to Municipal Council Akaltara in Janjgir-Champa district, holding that a straightforward transfer between two municipal corporations is contrary to the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, sitting singly, allowed the writ petition filed under Article 226 by Mohammad Wasim Khan on 16 July 2026 — just five days after the impugned order was issued. The court found that Section 58(5) and Section 58(6) of the Act of 1956 permit the movement of a municipal employee from one corporation to another only through deputation or by taking lien, and that a bare transfer order answers neither requirement.

The Transfer Order and the Petition Before the Court

By order dated 11 July 2026, the State transferred Mohammad Wasim Khan, a sub-engineer working with Municipal Corporation Raipur, to Municipal Council Akaltara. His name appeared at serial number 28 in that order. The stated reason was administrative exigency. Akaltara is roughly 150 kilometres from Raipur.

Khan filed WPS No. 5385 of 2026 before the High Court seeking to quash the posting order. Ms. M. Asha, appearing for the petitioner, advanced two broad lines of argument. The first was statutory: that Section 58(5) and Section 58(6) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 prohibit a simple transfer between two distinct municipal corporations. The second was personal: that Khan's mother was suffering from ailments and had no one else to care for her, and that his newly born child would be adversely affected if he had to relocate to a place 150 kilometres away.

On the statutory argument, Ms. Asha drew support from a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, in Jitendra Shrivastava v. State of M.P. & another (WP No. 4045/2017), where the transfer of an employee from Municipal Corporation Ujjain to Municipal Corporation Ashoknagar had been quashed. That court in turn had relied on the Full Bench ruling in Indore Nagar Nigam Karmachari Sangh, reported in 1998 (1) MPLJ 449.

State's Defence: Administrative Exigency and Section 58 Empowers the Government

Shri Gary Mukhopadhyay, Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, opposed the petition. So did Ms. Swati Agrawal, appearing on behalf of Shri Pankaj Agrawal for the Municipal Corporation Raipur.

The State's position was that the petition was without substance because the petitioner had not demonstrated any infringement of a right that could attract a writ. Counsel argued that Section 58(5) of the Act of 1956 expressly empowers the State Government to transfer any officer or servant of a Municipal Corporation to any other Municipal Corporation, and that this power could be exercised without consulting either the employee concerned or the corporation. Section 58(6), the State argued, protects the lien on the post as well as the pay and allowances of the transferred employee at the level applicable in the parent corporation. Given that protection, counsel submitted that the petitioner's apprehension about adverse effects on seniority, pay, and allowances was not well-founded.

For the proposition that transfer is both an incident and a condition of service and is necessary in public interest, the State relied on the Supreme Court's decision in State of U.P. and another v. Siya Ram and another, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 405. On the personal difficulties raised by the petitioner, the State contended that adequate treatment facilities would be available at or near the place of transfer.

How the Court Read Section 58(5) and Section 58(6)

Justice Bibhu Datta Guru examined Section 58(5) and Section 58(6) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 closely in light of the impugned order.

The court's reading was precise: while Section 58(5) does permit the State Government to transfer a municipal employee from one corporation to another, the mechanism that the Act contemplates for such movement is deputation or transfer with lien. A plain transfer order — one that is neither framed as a deputation nor accompanied by a lien arrangement — does not satisfy the statutory framework.

The impugned order of 11 July 2026 was, on its face, a pure transfer order. There was no indication that it was structured as a deputation. There was equally no indication that it preserved Khan's lien on his post at Municipal Corporation Raipur in the manner required. The court held that on this ground alone, the transfer was contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1956.

The court did not quash the transfer on the personal grounds advanced — the ailing mother or the newly born child. Those submissions are recorded but the reasoning that carried the order rested entirely on the statutory incompatibility of the transfer mechanism with Section 58.

Liberty Reserved for Deputation in Accordance with Law

While allowing the petition and quashing the transfer order dated 11 July 2026 in respect of the petitioner, Justice Guru was careful to preserve the State's operational latitude. The order expressly reserves liberty in favour of the State and the respondent authorities to send Khan on deputation if they so desire or if administrative exigency so requires — provided any such deputation is made strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1956.

This means the State retains the ability to post Khan at Akaltara or elsewhere, but must route that movement through the correct legal channel: a formal deputation order, not a transfer simpliciter.

Outcome

WPS No. 5385 of 2026 was allowed by Justice Bibhu Datta Guru on 16 July 2026. The posting order dated 11 July 2026 (Annexure P/1), transferring Mohammad Wasim Khan from Municipal Corporation Raipur to Municipal Council Akaltara, has been quashed. The State and respondent authorities remain free to send the petitioner on deputation in accordance with Section 58 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, should administrative exigency require it.