ORDER : 1. Since an identical issue and common facts of law are involved in both the cases, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner Smt. Neha Dewangan in Writ Petition (S) No 1648 of 2024 and the petitioner Smt. Indira Bhagat in Writ Petition (S) No 1652 of 2024 who are working as Assistant Project Officers, have filed these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 6-3-2024 passed by the respondent No.1 whereby the services of the petitioner Smt. Neha Dewangan have been transferred from the office of Jila Panchayat Bastar to Incharge Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Pancahyat, Tilda, District Raipur whereas the services of the petitioner Smt. Indira Bhagat have been transferred from Zila Pancahyat Koba District Korba to Janpad Panchayat, Malkharoda, District Janjgir Champa. 3. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions assailing the transfer order on the count that the impugned order dated 6-3-2024 is not a transfer order but it is a deputation, as such their consent is required. It has also been contended that in their appointment order dated 28-2- 2017 (Annexure P/2) in the Clause No.7, it has been mentioned that their posting will not be done in the field office, accordingly, the petitioner was posted in the office of Zila Panchayat. Similar terms and conditions have been mentioned in the appointment order of the petitioner Smt. Indira Bhagat in WP(S) No. 1652 of 2024 who was appointed as Assistant Project Officer on 8-6-2017. 4. Mr. Somkant Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(S) No. 1648 of 2024 would submit that the impugned order is not a transfer order, but it is a deputation, therefore, petitioner's consent is required and respondent No.1 shifted to the petitioners in the field office and out of office of Jila Panchayat, thus action of respondent No.1 suffers from mala fide. Learned counsels for the petitioners would further submit that the State has framed policy on 12-8-2022 and the respondents have issued transfer policy for all the departments whereby certain conditions have been mentioned in the transfer policy which provides ban period and the present petitioners have been transferred in a ban period without coordination of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, therefore, transfer order is bad-in-law and would pray for quashing of the impugned order. It has also been contended that the petitioner being employee of Zila Panchayat cadre, she cannot be posted outside of the cadre without her consent, as such the impugned order is bad-in-law. 5. Mr. R.S. Baghel learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(S) No. 1652 2024 apart from the grounds raised in WP(S) No. 1648 of 2024, would submit that the petitioner has been recently transferred on 29-10-2023 from Zila Panchayat, Balrampur Ramanujganj to Zila Panchayat, Korba as Assistant Project Officer and within a short period of six months again she has been transferred by the impugned order. He would further submit that as per the set up declared by the Development Commissioner on 6-5-2023, 89 posts have been set up in the office of District Panchayat out of which 43 posts have to be filled up from deputation and remaining 41 posts have to be filled up from direct recruitment. He would further submit that since the petitioner has been appointed directly on the post of Assistant Project Officer vide order dated 8-6-2017 and since her appointment was made for District Panchayat, she cannot be posted in the field office, therefore, the impugned order dated 6-3-2024 (Annexure P/1) is badin- law. 6. The petitioners have filed additional documents also along with the gradation list as on 1-4-2020 of the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat and would submit that the petitioners have been shifted to out of cadre without obtaining their consent as the posts of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat and Assistant Project Officer are different posts and their seniority maintained by the department differently, therefore, it is a deputation and they have been sent on deputation without obtaining their consent, as such the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 7. The State has filed their return in both the cases and has taken common stand mainly contended that the service of the petitioners is governed by the Chhattisgarh Panchayat & Rural Development Department (Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules 2013 (for short, “the Rules 2013’) wherein as per Schedule-I at Serial No. 6, the post of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat is mentioned classifying as Class-II with pay scale of Rs.9300-34800/- Grade Pay of Rs.4400/-. Subsequently vide an amendment in the aforesaid Schedule, the post of Assistant Project Officer was added. Subsequently vide an amendment in the aforesaid Schedule, the post of Assistant Project Officer was added. As per the notification dated 6-8-2015 the post of Assistant Project Officer has been fixed at Serial No.6-A of Schedule -1, thus he would submit that accordingly the State Government has transferred the services of the petitioners from Assistant Project Officer, Jila Panchayat Bastar to Incharge Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Tilda, District Raipur. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that the services of the petitioners have been transferred out of cadre is baseless and without foundation and same deserves to be rejected. It has also been further submitted that there are total 61 posts of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Pancahyat in the respondent No.1/Department, out of which 42 posts have been filed while 19 posts are still vacant, therefore, to ensure smooth functioning of the work as well as implementation of the government schemes and administrative exigencies arose as well as the rules permit the State Government to transfer the petitioners, the services of the petitioners have been transferred by the impugned order, as such there is no illegality or perversity on the part of the respondent authorities. Further it has been stated that the petitioners have been posted as In-charge Chief Executive Officer which does not effect their service condition, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order. It has also been contended that as per Schedule IV of the Rules 2013, the promotional post of both the posts of Assistant Project Officer and the Chief Executive Officer is the same as Deputy Commissioner. Thus, no prejudice will also be caused to the petitioners by the impugned order. It has been further contended that the present transfer is passed purely to meet the administrative exigency, as such it cannot be said that malafidely the petitioners have been transferred. It has been further contended that the transfer is an incident of service and the employee can be transferred from one place to another in any administrative exigency and no government servant can insist to remain posted at a particular place forever and it is a prerogative of the employer to post the government servant considering the exigency and would pray for dismissal of both the writ petitions. 8. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have been sent out of their cadre, therefore, it is not a transfer and it is a deputation and no consent of the petitioners has been obtained by the respondent authorities to send the petitioners outside of the cadre, therefore, the impugned order is bad-in-law. To substantiate their submissions learned counsel for the petitioners have referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prasar Bharti and others vs. Amarjeet Singh and others, reported in (2007) 9 SCC 539 and also order dated 30-10-2017 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this court in WPS No 1320 of 2017 and would pray for allowing the petition. 9. The State reiterating the submission which has already been made in their additional affidavit would submit that the petitioners within their cadre and within their department have been transferred, therefore, it is not a deputation and it is a transfer order, as such there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order and would pray for dismissal of both the writ petitions. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost satisfaction. 11. From the above stated facts, the point to be determined by this court is “whether the petitioners have been sent out of their cadre on deputation without obtaining their consent, therefore, the transfer order (Annexure P/1) is bad-in-law or not.” 12. To determine this point, it is necessary for this court to extract the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Fundamental Rules governing the field. Cadre has been defined in Clause 9(4) of the CG Fundamental Rules. “Cadre” means the strength of a service or a part of a service sanctioned as a separate unit. The Fundamental Rule 110 deals with foreign service which provides that the authorities competent to transfer a Government servant to foreign service. Fundamental Rule 110 reads as under: “F.R. 110. (a) No Government servant may be transferred to foreign service against his will: 1 [Provided that this sub-rule shall not apply to the transfer of a Government servant to the service of a body, incorporated or not, which is wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government.] (b) A transfer to foreign service outside India may be sanctioned by the Governor- General in Council. 1 Inserted by F.D. Notification No.1503-R-149-IV---1, dated 18.6.60. 1 Inserted by F.D. Notification No.1503-R-149-IV---1, dated 18.6.60. An extension of foreign service to be treated fresh transfer. Authorities competent to transfer a Government servant to foreign service. FUNDAMENTAL RULES Vol – I CHAPTER XII FOREIGN SERVICE 3 of 16 Note- The Government of Madras is authorized to transfer to service in Ceylon any Government servant other than a member of an All India Service. (c) Subject to any restriction which the Governor- General in Council may be general order impose in the case of transfer to the service of an Indian State, a transfer to foreign service in India may be sanctioned by the Local Government under which the Government servant transferred is serving. F.R. 111. A transfer to foreign service is not admissible unless - 2 Deleted by F.D. Notification No.175-R-1 IV, dated 10.3.60. From one local body to another. Transfer to foreign service, when admissible. FUNDAMENTAL RULES Vol – I CHAPTER XII FOREIGN SERVICE 5 of 16 (a) the duties to be performed after the transfer are such as should, for public reasons, be rendered by a Government servant; and (b) the Government servant transferred holds, at the time of transfer, a post paid from general revenues, or holds a lien on a permanent post, or would hold a lien on such a post had his lien not been suspended” 13. The Cadre means the strength of a service or a part of service sanctioned as a separate unit. The word “Cadre” in service law has come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ran Singh Malik vs. State of Haryana and others, reported in (2002) 3 SCC 182 wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held as under. “The aforesaid Rule nowhere defined the cadre or indicated as to which post would be borne in the cadre. In the absence of such definition of cadre in the Rule, the normal connotation would apply, and therefore, a cadre would ordinarily mean the strength of a service or a part of the service so determined by the Government constituting the post therein”. 14. Again Hon’ble the Supreme Court has examined the definition of cadre in case of Union of India and others vs. Rubi Mazumdar, reported in 2008 (9) SCC 242 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme court has held in para 22 to 26 which read as under. “22. 14. Again Hon’ble the Supreme Court has examined the definition of cadre in case of Union of India and others vs. Rubi Mazumdar, reported in 2008 (9) SCC 242 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme court has held in para 22 to 26 which read as under. “22. A conjoint reading of paragraph 103(7) of the Code, 103(iii) of the Railway Establishment Manual and Circular R.B.E. No.113/97 makes it clear that in the railways, the term `cadre' generally denotes the strength of a service or a part of a service sanctioned as a separate unit. However, for the purpose of roster, a wider meaning has been given to the said term so as to take within its fold the posts sanctioned in different grades. The reason for giving this enlarged meaning to the term "cadre" is that posts in the railway establishment are sanctioned with reference to grades. Even temporary, work charged, supernumerary and shadow posts created in different grades can constitute part of the cadre. 23. In the service jurisprudence which has developed in our country, no fixed meaning has been ascribed to the term "cadre". In different service rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution as also rules framed in exercise of the powers of delegated legislation, the word "cadre" has been given different meaning. 24. In A.K. Subraman and Others vs. Union of India and Others [ 1975 (1) SCC 319 ], a three Judges Bench of this Court while interpreting the provisions contained in Central Engineering Service, Class I, Recruitment Rules, 1954, observed as under “20."The word "grade" has various shades of meaning in the service jurisprudence. It is sometimes used to denote a pay scale and sometimes a cadre. Here it is obviously used in the sense of cadre. A cadre may consist only of permanent posts or sometimes, as is quite common these days, also of temporary posts." 25. . In Dr. Chakradhar Paswan vs. State of Bihar and Others [ 1988 (2) SCC 214 ] it was observed as under:- "In service jurisprudence, the term `cadre' has a definite legal connotation. It is not synonymous with `service'. A cadre may consist only of permanent posts or sometimes, as is quite common these days, also of temporary posts." 25. . In Dr. Chakradhar Paswan vs. State of Bihar and Others [ 1988 (2) SCC 214 ] it was observed as under:- "In service jurisprudence, the term `cadre' has a definite legal connotation. It is not synonymous with `service'. It is open to the Government to constitute as many cadres in any particular service as it may choose according to the administrative convenience and expediency and it cannot be said that the establishment of the Directorate constituted the formation of a joint cadre of the Director and the Deputy Directors because the posts are not interchangeable and the incumbents do not perform the same duties, carry the same responsibilities or draw the same pay. The posts of the Director and those of the Deputy Directors constitute different cadres of the Service. The first vacancy in the cadre of Deputy Directors was that of the Deputy Director (Homoeopathic) and it had to be treated as unreserved, the second reserved and the third unreserved. Therefore, for the first vacancy of the Deputy Director (Homeopathic), a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste had therefore to compete with others. 26. In State of Maharashtra vs. Purshottam and Others [ 1996 (9) SCC 266 ], it was held that the "cadre" means unit of strength of a service or a part of it as determined by the employer” 15. Thereafter Hon’ble the Supreme Court has again examined the word “Cadre” in case of Jarnail Singh and others vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta and others, reported in (2022) 10 SCC 595 wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held in para 30 and 31 which read as under. “30. It would be relevant to refer to the judgments of this Court which have dealt with the scope of the expression “cadre”. Rule 4(2) of the Central Engineering Service, Class I, Recruitment Rules, 1954 provided that 75% of the vacancies in the grade of Executive Engineer, Class I shall be filled by promotion from Assistant Executive Engineers, Class I. Interpreting the words “vacancies in the grade of Executive Engineer”, this Court in A.K. Subraman & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1975) 1 SCC 319 held that the word “grade” is used in the sense of cadre. 31. v. Union of India & Ors., (1975) 1 SCC 319 held that the word “grade” is used in the sense of cadre. 31. The dispute that arose for consideration of this Court in Dr Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar & Ors., (1988) 2 SCC 214 relates to the posts of Director and three Deputy Directors in the Directorate of Indigenous Medicines, Department of Health, State of Bihar being grouped together for the purpose of implementing the policy of reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. This Court was of the opinion that though the Director and three Deputy Directors are Class I posts, the posts of Director and Deputy Directors do not constitute one ‘cadre’. It was held that the term “cadre” has a definite legal connotation in service jurisprudence. This Court referred to Fundamental Rule 9(4) which defines the word “cadre” to mean the strength of a service or part of a service sanctioned as a separate unit. It was observed that as the post of Director is the highest post in the Directorate of Indigenous Medicines for which a higher pay scale is prescribed in comparison to Deputy Directors, who are entitled to a lower scale of pay, they constitute two distinct cadres or grades. This Court further expressed its view that it is open to the Government to constitute as many cadres in any particular service as it may choose, according to administrative convenience and expediency. This Court concluded that the post of Director and Deputy Directors constitute different cadres in the service”. 16. From bare perusal of Chhattisgarh Panchayat & Rural Development Department (Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules, 2013, it is quite vivid that as per Section 3 of the said Rules, these rules are applicable to a member of service. It is not in dispute that the appointment of the petitioners is governed by these rules only. In the Schedule-I of the said Rules which has been amended on 06.08.2015 and Clause 6A has been inserted by including the post of Assistant Project Officer. Similarly, in the Schedule-II, Schedule-III and Schedule-IV have also been amended by inserting the post of Assistant Project Officer in the pay scale of the Rs. 9300 – 34800 /-. In the Schedule-I of the said Rules which has been amended on 06.08.2015 and Clause 6A has been inserted by including the post of Assistant Project Officer. Similarly, in the Schedule-II, Schedule-III and Schedule-IV have also been amended by inserting the post of Assistant Project Officer in the pay scale of the Rs. 9300 – 34800 /-. The Rule 14 of the said Rules which provides appointment by promotion in which also the post of Assistant Project Officer has also been inserted and the promotion from the post of Assistant Project Officer after five years of service on the post of Deputy Commissioner has been provided by amending Schedule-IV. Thus, it is quite vivid that the post of Assistant Project Officer is also in the cadre of the Panchayat & Rural Development Department (Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules, 2013 and the petitioners who are working as Assistant Project Officers have been transferred as In-charge Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad Panchayat which is also in the Panchayat & Rural Development Department (Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules, 2013. 17. From the aforesaid discussion and considering the facts that the petitioners have been transferred within their department, as such it cannot be called transfer from outside the cadre or it cannot be called “deputation”. The word “deputation’ is subject matter of interpretation in service jurisprudence by the Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab and others vs. Inder Singh and others, reported in (1997) 8 SCC 372 , has examined the word ‘deputation” and has held in para 18 as under. “18. Concept of "deputation" is well understood in service law and has a recognized meaning. 'Deputation' has a different connotation in service law and the dictionary meaning of the word 'deputation' is of no help. In simple words 'deputation' means service outside the cadre or outside the parent department. Deputation is deputing or transferring an employee to a post outside his cadre, that is to say, to another department on a temporary basis. After the expiry period of deputation the employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the same position unless in the meanwhile he has earned promotion in his parent department as per Recruitment Rules. After the expiry period of deputation the employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the same position unless in the meanwhile he has earned promotion in his parent department as per Recruitment Rules. Whether the transfer is outside the normal field of deployment or not is decided by the authority who controls the service or post from which the employee is transferred. There can be no deputation without the consent of the person so deputed and he would, therefore, know his rights and privileges in the deputation post. The law on deputation and repatriation is quite settled as we have also seen in various judgments which we have referred to above. There is no escape for the respondents now to go back to their parent departments and working there as Constables or Head Constables as the case may be”. 18. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has again examined the word ‘deputation” in case of Umpati Choudhary vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in 1999) 4 SCC 659 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 8 as under. “8. Deputation can be aptly described as an assignment' of an employee (commonly referred to as the deputationist) of one department or cadre or even an organization (commonly referred to as the parent department or lending authority) to another department or cadre or organization (commonly referred to as the borrowing authority). The necessity for sending on deputation arises in public interest to meet the exigencies of public service. The concept of deputation is consensual and involves a voluntary decision of the employer to lend the services of his employee and a corresponding acceptance of such services by the borrowing employer. It also involves the consent of the employee to go on deputation or not. In the case at hand all the three conditions were fulfilled. The University, the parent department or lending authority, the Board, the borrowing authority and the appellant the deputationist, had all given their consent for deputation of the appellant and for his permanent absorption in the establishment of the borrowing authority. There is no material to show that the deputation of the appellant was not. in public interest or it --.'as vitiated by favoritism or mala fide. The learned single Judge in the previous writ petition had neither quashed the deputation order nor issued any direction for its termination. There is no material to show that the deputation of the appellant was not. in public interest or it --.'as vitiated by favoritism or mala fide. The learned single Judge in the previous writ petition had neither quashed the deputation order nor issued any direction for its termination. Indeed the learned single Judge had dismissed the writ petition. No material has been placed before us to show that between November 1987 when the judgment of the single Judge was rendered and December 1991 when the Division Bench disposed of the writ petition filed by the appellant the petitioners of the previous case had raised any grievance or made any complaint regarding non-compliance of the directions made in the judgment of the learned single Judge. In these circumstances the Division Bench was clearly in error in declining to grant relief to the appellant. Further, the appellant has, in the meantime, retired from service, and therefore, the decision in the case is relevant only for the purpose of calculating his retiral benefits”. 19. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners in case of Prasar Bharti (supra) is distinguishable from the facts of the present case as Prasar Bharti has become autonomous body and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Prasar Bharti (supra) has held in para 13 as under:- “13. There exists a distinction between 'transfer' and 'deputation'. 'Deputation' connotes service outside the cadre or outside the parent department in which an employee is serving. 'Transfer', however, is limited to equivalent post in the same cadre and in the same department. Whereas deputation would be a temporary phenomenon, transfer being antithesis must exhibit the opposite indication”. This is not the situation in the present case as the petitioners have been transferred in the same department and in the same cadre as per amendment made in the Schedule-I by inserting at serial No. 6A, by amending Schedule-II, Schedule-III and Schedule-IV by inserting post of Assistant Project Officer at serial No. 6A, 2 and 2A respectively. Thus, the service conditions of the petitioners are not, being adversely affected by posting them in Janpad Panchayat. 20. Thus, the service conditions of the petitioners are not, being adversely affected by posting them in Janpad Panchayat. 20. Considering the entirety of the facts and in view of the service rules governing the service conditions of the petitioners, I am of the view that the petitioners have not been sent on deputation, as such the consent of the petitioners is not required and it is a simple transfer. Also considering the well settled legal position of law that transfer is an incident of service and no government servant can insist to remain posted at a particular place forever and it is for the employer to post the employee considering the administrative exigency, I am of the view that both writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. 21. However, in WP(S) No. 1652 of 2024, the petitioner has alleged that she has been transferred within a short period of six months and she joined at the present place of posting on 6-3-2023 vide order dated 29-10-2023, therefore, the petitioner Smt. Indira Bhagat is directed to make a representation before the respondent authority raising all her grievances. 22. Accordingly, both the writ petitions being devoid of merit deserve to be and are hereby dismissed. 23. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.