State Government cannot cancel an executed Corporation transfer without statutory authority.

The petitioner, an employee of the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, was transferred by order dated 10 September 2026 from the post of Manager (Finance), District Durg, to In-charge District Manager, Balod.

She was relieved from Durg and joined at Balod on 11 September 2026.

Thereafter, the State Government issued an order dated 13 September 2026, purportedly under Rule 47(2) of the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Conduct, Discipline, Appeal and Service Recruitment Rules, 2021, cancelling the petitioner’s transfer.

The petitioner challenged the cancellation, contending that the State Government lacked authority to interfere with the Corporation’s internal transfer and posting decisions and that the transfer had already been executed upon her joining at Balod.

1. Whether the State Government had jurisdiction under Rule 47(2) of the 2021 Rules to cancel or interfere with a transfer order issued by the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited?

2. Whether a transfer order could be cancelled after it had been acted upon and executed by the employee joining at the transferred place of posting?

3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to continue as In-charge District Manager, Balod pursuant to her joining dated 11 September 2026?

The Court applied Rule 28 of the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Conduct, Discipline, Appeal and Service Recruitment Rules, 2021, under which the Managing Director of the Corporation is the competent authority concerning the service areas, postings and transfers of Corporation employees.

It also considered Rule 47(2) of the 2021 Rules, holding that the provision did not confer upon the State Government authority to interfere with the Corporation’s internal transfer, posting or service matters.

The Court further applied the settled principle that once a transfer order has been acted upon and executed by the employee joining the transferred post, its subsequent modification or cancellation is impermissible in law.

The transfer order dated 10 September 2026 had been validly implemented when the petitioner was relieved from Durg and joined at Balod on 11 September 2026.

Consequently, the State Government’s subsequent order dated 13 September 2026 amounted both to an impermissible cancellation of an executed transfer and to an exercise of power not authorised by Rule 47(2) of the 2021 Rules.

The Court accepted that the Corporation, through its competent authority under Rule 28, possessed the authority to deal with its employees’ postings and transfers, whereas the State Government could not rely merely on the Corporation’s status as an instrumentality of the State to assume jurisdiction over its internal service matters.

The cancellation order dated 13 September 2026 was quashed.

The respondents were directed to permit the petitioner to continue as In-charge District Manager, Balod, pursuant to her joining dated 11 September 2026.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed to that extent.