ORDER : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 17- 12-2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.5439/2020, by which the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 herein was allowed and the order of transfer dated 15-9-2020 has been set aside finding the order of transfer to be in violation of Section 22(2) of the Chhattisgarh Police Act, 2007 (for short, ‘the Act of 2007’). 2. The respondent herein being the writ petitioner filed writ petition before this Court that he being the Head Constable/member of the Chhattisgarh Armed Force has been transferred by the Special Director General by order dated 15-9-2020 contrary to the provisions contained in Section 22(2) of the Act of 2007 and apart from that, he has not made any request for transfer, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. The respondent relied upon the Single Bench decision of this Court in W.P.(S)No.7929/2018 (Subhash Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), decided on 3-12-2018. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order, set aside the transfer order dated 15-9-2020 finding the same to be in violation of Section 22(2) of the Act of 2007 and also on the factual ground that the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 herein did not make any request for transfer, but the order impugned has been passed without issuing notice and without affording opportunity of hearing to the appellants herein/State. Thus, the order impugned has been called in question by the State and its authorities by way of this present writ appeal. 3. Mr. Amrito Das, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the writ appellants/State, would submit that the respondent herein/writ petitioner is a member of the Chhattisgarh Armed Force and therefore his transfer would be governed by Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Sashastra Bal Adhiniyam, 1968 (for short, ‘the Act of 1968’) read with Rule 55 of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Sashastra Bal Niyam, 1973 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1973’) and Section 22(2) of the Act of 2007 would not be applicable to the writ petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Mr. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Mr. Abhishek Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/respondent herein, would support the impugned order and submit that in Subhash Pandey (supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court had already taken a view which has also been followed in other cases i.e. W.P.(S)No.5280/2021 (Damrudhar Rathiya v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and other connected cases, decided on 16-3-2022, against which writ appeal has also not been preferred by the State, as such, the instant writ appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Admittedly, the writ petitioner/respondent herein is a member of the Chhattisgarh Armed Force and at the time when the order of transfer was passed, he was posted at 13th Battalion, CAF Bango and he has been transferred to 21st Battalion, CAF Balod, which has been challenged by him by way of writ petition and which the learned Single Judge has allowed finding the same in violation of sub-section (2) of Section 22 of the Act of 2007, whereas, it is the case of the State/writ appellants herein that the Act of 2007 would not be applicable to the writ petitioner/respondent herein and the Act of 1968 read with the Rules of 1973 would be applicable and therefore the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 7. In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to notice firstly the provisions contained in the Act of 2007. The Act of 2007 has been enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to Police Force in the State of Chhattisgarh and matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. By virtue of Section 1(3) of the Act of 2007, it extends to the whole of the State of Chhattisgarh, and to the police officers of the State of Chhattisgarh deployed outside the State. By virtue of Section 1(3) of the Act of 2007, it extends to the whole of the State of Chhattisgarh, and to the police officers of the State of Chhattisgarh deployed outside the State. The term “Police Officer” has been defined in Section 2(h) of the Act of 2007, which states as under: - “(h) “Police Officer” means any member of the Police Force appointed under this Act or appointed before the commencement of this Act for the State and includes members of the Indian Police Service or members of any other police organization on deputation to the State Police, serving for the State and persons appointed under Section 9 or 10 of this Act;” 8. A careful perusal of the definition of “Police Officer” would show that it includes any member of the Police Force appointed under this Act or appointed before the commencement of this Act for the State and includes members of the Indian Police Service or members of any other police organization on deputation to the State Police, serving for the State and persons appointed under Section 9 or 10 of this Act; meaning thereby, the Act of 2007 would be applicable to any officer appointed as a member of the Police Force under the Act of 2007 before or after the commencement of the Act and members of the Indian Police Service and even the members of any other police organization who are on deputation in the State Police, serving for the State, and it would also apply to the persons appointed under Section 9 or 10 of the Act. Section 3 of the Act of 2007 provides for Constitution of State Police by stating that there shall be a State Police for the State, as an agency of the Government and the State Police shall consist of such ranks and numbers and have such organisation as the Government may, by general or special order, determine. Section 22 provides for constitution of Police Establishment Board by a notification with the Director General of Police as its Chairman and four other senior police officers not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police. Section 22 provides for constitution of Police Establishment Board by a notification with the Director General of Police as its Chairman and four other senior police officers not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police. Subsection (2) of Section 22 is important and it states as under: - “(2) The Board shall perform the following functions and duties :— (a) Transfer of subordinate ranks up to the level of Inspector from one Zone or Range or District to another; (b) Receive and examine representation from police officers aggrieved by any order of superior officers, other than the orders passed under the rule made under the Article 309 of the Constitution of India and — I. Decide such representation if it is received from a police officer of the sub-ordinate rank; II. Make recommendation to the State Government in other cases. (c) Such other functions and duties as may be prescribed.” 9. By virtue of sub-section (2)(a) of Section 22 of the Act of 2007, power to transfer the employees of subordinate ranks up to the level of Inspector from one Zone or Range or District to another has been conferred to the Police Establishment Board consisting of the Director General of Police as Chairman and four other senior police officers not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police, as members. By virtue of Section 53 of the Act of 2007, the Indian Police Act, 1861 in its application to the State of Chhattisgarh has been repealed. 10. A careful survey of the aforesaid provisions of the Act of 2007 would show that it is applicable to the Police Force appointed under the Act and also to the Police Force appointed before the commencement of the Act for the State including members of the Indian Police Service and even to the members of any other police organization who are on deputation to the State Police, working for the State and also to the persons appointed under Section 9 or 10 of the Act. Power to transfer the subordinate ranks of officers up to the level of Inspector from one Zone or Range or District to another has been conferred to the Police Establishment Board chaired by the Director General of Police and four other senior police officers not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police. Power to transfer the subordinate ranks of officers up to the level of Inspector from one Zone or Range or District to another has been conferred to the Police Establishment Board chaired by the Director General of Police and four other senior police officers not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police. As such, Section 22(2)(a) of the Act of 2007 would be applicable to the police officers who are covered by sub-section (3) of Section 1 read with Section 2(h) of the Act of 2007, however, if the police officer does not fall within the definition of Section 1(3) or Section 2(h), the Police Establishment Board would have no jurisdiction under Section 22(2)(a) to pass an order of transfer, as no power has been conferred to the Police Establishment Board. 11. The writ petitioner/respondent herein, in the instant case, is admittedly, a member of the Chhattisgarh Armed Force i.e. 13th Battalion, CAF Bango. The Act of 1968 has been enacted by the competent authority which came into force with effect from 7-12- 1969. It is an Act to provide for the constitution and regulation of the Special Armed Force in the State of Chhattisgarh and it is called as the Chhattisgarh Armed Force with effect from 1-11-2000. By virtue of sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the Act of 1968, it has been made applicable to the members of Chhattisgarh Special Armed Force, wherever they may be. Clauses (f) & (g) of Section 2 define “Officer of the Special Armed Force” and “Police Officer” respectively, which state as under: - “(f) “Officer of the Special Armed Force” means a member of the Special Armed Force; (g) “Police Officer” means every Police Officer as defined in the Police Act, 1861 (V of 1861);” 12. Section 3 of the Act of 1968 provides for “Constitution of the Chhattisgarh Special Armed Force” and Section 9 provides for “Transfer”. Section 9 states as under: - “9. Transfer.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the Police Act, 1861 (V of 1861), it shall be competent to the State Government or the Inspector- General if so authorised by the State Government in this behalf, to transfer members of the Police Force appointed under the Police Act, 1861 (V of 1861), to the Special Armed Force and vice versa. (2) On the transfer of a member of the Police Force appointed under the Police Act, 1861 (V of 1861), to the Special Armed Force or vice versa, he shall be deemed to be a member of the Special Armed Force or the Police Force, as the case may be, to which he is transferred and in the performance of his functions, he shall, subject to such orders as the State Government may make, be deemed to be vested with the powers and privileges and be subject to the liabilities, of a member of such grade in the Special Armed Force or the Police Force, as the case may be to which he has been transferred as may be specified in the orders.” 13. In exercise of the rule making powers conferred by sub-sections (1) & (2) of Section 27 of the Act of 1968, the State Government has framed the Rules of 1973 and Rule 55 of the Rules of 1973 provides for “Transfers”, which states that transfers of Officers and members of the subordinate ranks from the Special Armed Force to the Police Force shall be governed by the provisions of Section 9 of the Act of 1968. Rule 55 of the Rules of 1973 states as under: - “55. Transfers.-Transfers of Officers and members of the subordinate ranks from the Special Armed Force to the Police Force shall be governed by the provisions of section 9 of the Act.” 14. A conjoint reading of Section 9 of the Act of 1968 read with Rule 55 of the Rules of 1973 would show that Section 9 contains a non obstante clause which gives an overriding effect over other provisions of the Act of 1968 or enactments i.e. the Police Act, 1861, which has been repealed by the Act of 2007 and as such, the Act of 1968 would have overriding effect over the provisions of the Police Act, 1861, which has been repealed by the Act of 2007 and it shall be competent to the State Government or the Inspector General if so authorised by the State Government to transfer members of the Police Force appointed under the Act of 2007 to the Special Armed Force and vice versa. Vice versa means the other way round, in the opposite way to what has just been said. Vice versa means the other way round, in the opposite way to what has just been said. Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act of 1968 provides that the State Government can divide the Special Armed Force into groups and further sub-divide each group into battalions, and each battalion into companies, and each company into platoons, and the companies which are formed are also the part of the Special Armed Force, therefore, the competent authority under Section 9 of the Act of 1968 has power and jurisdiction to transfer the members of the Special Armed Force in accordance with Section 9 of the Act of 1968 to any of its companies, platoons, etc.. 15. Consequently, the order of the writ court holding that even for members of Special Armed Force, the Police Establishment Board under Section 22(2) of the Act of 2007 would have jurisdiction to pass the order of transfer, is contrary to Section 9 of the Act of 1968 read with Rule 55 of the Rules of 1973 and is liable to be set aside. The Single Bench decision of this Court in Subhash Pandey (supra) and subsequent other decisions following that decision also cannot be said to be laying down the correct and good law. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside. However, since the writ petitioner/respondent herein has raised ground that he has never made any request for transfer, if pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge, the order of the learned Single Judge has already been given effect to, the benefits flowing from that order would not be taken back from the writ petitioner/respondent herein. 16. The writ appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).