The State cannot cancel an executed Corporation transfer order under Rule 47(2).

The petitioner, an employee of the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, was transferred by order dated 10 September 2026 from Manager (Administration), District Narayanpur, to In-charge District Manager, Khairagarh. She was relieved from Narayanpur and joined at Khairagarh on 11 September 2026.

Subsequently, 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 transfer order after it had been acted upon. The petitioner challenged the cancellation and sought permission to continue at Khairagarh.

The Corporation contended that, under Rule 28, the Managing Director was the competent authority concerning postings and transfers of Corporation employees.

Whether the State Government was empowered under Rule 47(2) of the 2021 Rules to cancel or interfere with the petitioner’s transfer order issued by the Corporation?

Whether a transfer order could be subsequently modified or cancelled after it had been executed and the employee had joined the transferred post?

The Court applied the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Conduct, Discipline, Appeal and Service Recruitment Rules, 2021. Rule 28 was treated as conferring authority upon the Managing Director of the Corporation over the service areas, postings, and transfers of Corporation employees.

The Court held that Rule 47(2), the provision invoked by the State Government, did not empower the State to interfere with the Corporation’s internal transfer, posting, and service matters.

It 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.

No specific judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The transfer order dated 10 September 2026 was issued by the competent Corporation authority and was fully implemented when the petitioner joined at Khairagarh on 11 September 2026.

The State Government thereafter cancelled the executed transfer by invoking Rule 47(2). The Court found that the Rules vested control over postings and transfers in the Corporation, particularly the Managing Director under Rule 28, and did not confer power upon the State Government to interfere with such internal service matters.

Independently, the cancellation was legally impermissible because the transfer had already been acted upon and executed through the petitioner’s joining.

Accordingly, the impugned order was without jurisdiction and contrary to the governing Rules.

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

The petition was allowed to that extent.