DILIP KUMAR RATHORE vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — WPS/4530/2026

Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 18th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010225252026

Filing Number

WPS/12870/2026

Filing Date

11-Jun-2026

Registration No

WPS/4530/2026

Registration Date

12-Jun-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

SERVICE MATTERS ( 6 )

Sub-Category

TRANSFER MATTERS. ( 617 )

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Decision Date

18-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 19-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DILIP KUMAR RATHORE

    Adv. PRAVEEN DHURANDHAR,N.S.DHURANDHAR,N.S.DHURANDHAR, ,AMIT SINGH CHAUHAN,N.S.DHURANDHAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G.

  2. 2.Director

  3. 3.Collector

  4. 4.Chief Executive Officer

  5. 5.Chief Executive Officer

  6. 6.Ramesh Soni

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta GuruView PDF

    The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed Dilip Kumar Rathore's petition challenging the transfer order of 14/05/2026, which withdrew his additional charge as Gram Panchayat Secretary at Village Pendri and assigned it to Ramesh Soni. Although the petitioner argued the posting violated the 2009 government circular prohibiting posting in one's home village, the court held that posting and withdrawal of additional charge fall within the State Government's discretion and found no illegality in the impugned order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Jun-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

  4. 11-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPS/4530/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed Dilip Kumar Rathore's petition challenging the transfer order of 14/05/2026, which withdrew his additional charge as Gram Panchayat Secretary at Village Pendri and assigned it to Ramesh Soni. Although the petitioner argued the posting violated the 2009 government circular prohibiting posting in one's home village, the court held that posting and withdrawal of additional charge fall within the State Government's discretion and found no illegality in the impugned order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case