Page No.# 1/22 GAHC010308382019 2026:GAU-AS:10002 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/9330/2019 HIMEN GOGOI S/O LT. TUNIRAM GOGOI, R/O BYE LANE -8, SECTOR, BORDOLOI NAGAR DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN-786125 VERSUS THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. AND 9 ORS. REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIJULI BHAVAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI-1 2:THE ASSAM POWER GENERATION COMPANY LTD. REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR BIJULI BHAVAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-1 3:THE CHAIRMAN APDCL APGCL AEGCL BIJULEE BHAVAN PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI-1 4:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. BIJULI BHAVAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-1 5:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM POWER GENERATION COMPANY LTD. BIJULI BHAVAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-1 Page No.# 2/22 6:CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HRA) ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. BIJULI BHAVAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-1 7:CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HR) ASSAM POWER GENERATION COMPANY LTD. BIJULI BHAVAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-1 8:CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (GENERATION) ASSAM POWER GENERATION COMPANY LTD. BIJULI BHAVAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-1 9:CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER TINSUKIA ELECTRICITY CIRCLE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. TINSUKIA ELECTRICAL CIRCLE TINSUKIA ASSAM 10:ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER T AND C DIVISION TINSUKIA ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. TINSUKIA ELECTRICAL CIRCLE TINSUKIA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S BARTHAKUR, MR. K MOHAMMED,MR R SENSUA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 14/07/2026 Heard Mr. S Borthakur, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. D Gogoi, for the petitioner and Mr. S P Sarma, learned Standing counsel, APDCL, for the Page No.# 3/22 respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 9 and 10. None has appeared for the respondent Nos. 2, 5, 7 & 8. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has presented a challenge to an Office Order dated 05.12.2019, by which, the respondent APDCL, had rejected the claim of the petitioner for inclusion of his name in the Seniority List published of the incumbents holding posts in the cadre of Deputy Manager, APDCL, by holding that he was not an employee of APDCL. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the APDCL authorities, for inclusion of his name in the seniority list of the incumbents in the cadre of Deputy Manager, APDCL. 3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner on his selection, in pursuance to an advertisement issued by the erstwhile Assam State Electricity Board for recruitment against the posts of Junior Engineer (Electrical/Mechanical/ Instrumentation), was included in select list so published for the purpose. Thereafter, vide an order dated 10.09.2005, the petitioner was appointed by the Assam Power Generation Corporation Limited (in short, APGCL) as a Junior Engineer and was posted to Namrup Thermal Power Station (NTPS). It is to be noted that by the time, the petitioner was so appointed vide the order dated 10.09.2005, erstwhile Assam State Electricity Board was already unbundled into three distinct companies, i.e., Assam Power Generation Corporation Limited, Assam Power Distribution Company Limited and Assam Electricity Grid Corporation Limited. The petitioner by virtue of his appointment being effected, vide order Page No.# 4/22 dated 10.09.2005, was placed in the services of the Assam Power Generation Corporation Limited (in short, APGCL). The petitioner had taken over the charge of his appointed post on 17.10.2005, by submitting his joining report and charge taking over report before the authorities of the APGCL. Thereafter, the petitioner, along with one Brojen Saikia, had submitted applications for their mutual transfer. It is to be noted that said Brojen Saikia, at the relevant point of time, was posted under the control of the APDCL. The said request was accepted and vide order dated 21.03.2007, the petitioner was transferred from Namrup Thermal Power Station to Tinkhong Electric Sub-Division, in his capacity as a Junior Engineer. The order was so issued by the authorities of the Upper Assam Electricity Distribution Company Limited, which is placed under the APDCL. The petitioner, accordingly, joined his services at Tinkhong Electric Sub-Division. It is to be noted that the petitioner having proceeded to assume the charge of a post in APDCL organization, his Last Pay Certificate was issued by the APGCL authorities. The petitioner is found to have thereafter, continued in his services in APDCL. The petitioner, having joined his services on 17.10.2005, with a stipulation in his appointment order that he would remain on probation for a period of 2 (two) years, the APDCL authorities, at the relevant point of time, the petitioner being placed under their control, proceeded to issue an order dated 17.10.2007, declaring the services of the petitioner during the probation period to be satisfactory. The pay and allowances of the petitioner, upon his completion of the period of probation, was also accordingly fixed by the APDCL authorities. The petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was also declared to be eligible for appointment as Assistant Engineer by the Assam Page No.# 5/22 State Electricity Board, vide a Notification dated 07.02.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application before the Chairman, Assam State Electricity Board for promoting him from the post of Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer, by highlighting that he had the requisite qualification and had successfully completed 4 (four) years of service as a Junior Engineer in the Board. Pursuant to a DPC held in the matter, the petitioner being recommended, the APGCL authorities vide an order dated 17.02.2010, proceeded to appoint the petitioner provisionally as Assistant Manager (Instrumentation) and posted him in the establishment of the General Manager, NTPS, APGCL, Namrup, with effect from the date of taking over charge. A fresh probationary period of service also came to be stipulated for the petitioner vide the order dated 17.02.2010. The petitioner in terms of the appointment effected in his case against the post of Assistant Manager, vide order dated 17.02.2010, assumed the charge of the said post, by submitting a joining report dated 11.03.2010, before the General Manager, Namrup Thermal Power Station. The petitioner continued in his services as an Assistant Manager and after completion of 4 (four) years of satisfactory service as an Assistant Manager (Instrumentation) (Electrical/ Mechanical), vide Office Order dated 30.06.2014, the petitioner came to be designated as a Deputy Manager (E/M) by the APGCL authorities. The petitioner projects that on account of his family problems, including the ailments suffered by his mother, he had submitted a request before the authorities for consideration of his posting on transfer to Tinsukia in the APDCL organization. The said request of the petitioner was considered and the Chief General Manager (HRA), APDCL, vide order dated 08.12.2016, proceeded to Page No.# 6/22 transfer the petitioner and posted him in the T&C Division, APDCL, Tinsukia. The petitioner complied with the said order of transfer and assumed the charge of post as assigned to him by APDCL vide a Certificate of Transfer of Charge dated 17.12.2016. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted a representation before the APDCL authorities for inclusion of his name in the Seniority List published of the incumbents in the cadre of Deputy Manager. Thereafter, the APDCL authorities published a Seniority List of the incumbents in the cadre of Deputy Manager (Electrical/Mechanical). However, the name of the petitioner was not included, therein. Raising a grievance with regard to non-inclusion of his name in the Seniority List of Deputy Managers, working in APDCL, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 15.06.2019, praying for inclusion of his name in the Seniority List of Deputy Managers, APDCL. The said representation submitted by the petitioner was vide a communication dated 31.07.2019, rejected by the APDCL authorities, by projecting that the petitioner was an employee of APGCL and only on the ground of his transfer to APDCL on humanitarian grounds, he cannot be treated to be an employee of APDCL and he continued to be an employee of APGCL. The said communication dated 31.07.2019, was followed by an Office Order dated 04.11.2019, by which the petitioner was reverted back to his parent company, i.e., the APGCL with immediate effect. The earlier order of his transfer dated 08.12.2016 came to be cancelled. The petitioner being aggrieved by the reversion effected in his case, vide order dated 04.11.2019, had approached the APDCL authorities, praying for cancellation of the same. The same not having been considered, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition, being WP(C) No. Page No.# 7/22 8371/2019. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.11.2019, noticing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties to the proceeding as well as a policy decision of the APDCL authorities as contained in the Office Order dated 08.04.2016, wherein, the inter-company movement of officials at any level was directed to be not permitted, proceeded vide an order dated 15.11.2019 to dispose of the said writ petition, requiring the petitioner to submit an appeal before the Managing Director, APDCL, raising his grievances, therein. The Managing Director, APDCL was directed to dispose of the said appeal. It was further provided that on the filing of the appeal, within the time frame prescribed, the APDCL authorities till disposal of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, would not give effect to the order dated 04.11.2019, reverting the petitioner to NTPS, Namrup, if not already released. Thereafter, on the submission of an appeal by the petitioner in the matter, the APDCL authorities vide an Office Order dated 05.12.2019, proceeded to examine the claim of the petitioner raised in his appeal and on such examination by contending that the petitioner being never absorbed in the services of APDCL and his appointment and promotion upto the post of Deputy Manager being given effect in APGCL, the claim of the petitioner to include his name in the seniority list of Deputy Managers of APDCL was held to be not acceptable. Accordingly, the petitioner’s further claim for absorption in APDCL service was held to be not permissible to be so considered. The petitioner being aggrieved by the Office Order dated 05.12.2019 as well as non-inclusion of his name in the Seniority List of Deputy Managers of APDCL, has instituted the present writ petition. Page No.# 8/22 4. Mr. S Borthakur, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts noticed hereinabove, at the outset, has submitted that the question raised by the respondent APDCL that the petitioner was not an employee of APDCL, would stand rebutted on a mere perusal of the order dated 17.10.2007, passed by the APDCL authorities, declaring the completion of probation period by the petitioner. He submits that the said order would go to reveal that the petitioner, at that relevant point of time, was considered to be an employee in the APDCL service. He submits that in the event, the petitioner was not considered to be an employee of APDCL, at the relevant point of time, there would have not arisen any occasion for the APDCL authorities to confirm his service and thereafter, also to fix his pay in the manner required after such confirmation. 4.1 Mr. Borthakur, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner, on his initial transfer to the APDCL service effected vide order dated 21.03.2007 and during his continuation in APDCL, at no point of time, was informed that he was only working in APDCL, on a temporary basis and his parent department continued to be APGCL. 4.2 Mr. Borthakur, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the Departmental Promotion Committee of the erstwhile Assam State Electricity Board, having considered the case of the petitioner for recruitment to the post of Assistant Manager (Instrumentation) and on such recommendation being made, the APGCL authorities vide order dated 17.02.2010, having appointed the petitioner provisionally as Assistant Manager (Instrumentation), the petitioner was forced to accept the same, although, he had submitted an objection to the said appointment, now being effected in his case in APGCL. Page No.# 9/22 4.3 Mr. Borthakur, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that APGCL authorities as per the norms prevailing in all the three companies, on the petitioner completing 4 (four) years of satisfactory service as Assistant Manager (E/M), declared him as a Deputy Manager vide an order dated 30.06.2014. 4.4 It is submitted that the petitioner had, thereafter, considering the necessity of his presence at his home, made a request before the authorities for his transfer to a post in APDCL in the District of Tinsukia, i.e., his native district. The said application was duly considered in the manner required and vide order dated 08.12.2016, the petitioner was transferred and posted in T&C Division, Tinsukia, APDCL. 4.5 By referring to the order dated 08.12.2016, Mr. Borthakur, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was transferred in the interest of works. He submits that a transfer can occasion only between posts held to be equivalent and in respect of the service, wherein, the employee concerned is placed. He submits that the manner in which he was brought to the T&C Division, Tinsukia, APDCL, vide order dated 08.12.2016, would reveal that although, he was appointed as Assistant Manager and thereafter, re- designated as Deputy Manager in APGCL, the APDCL authorities had continued to treat the petitioner as an employee figuring in the service of APDCL. 4.6 Mr. Borthakur, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, while continuing as a Deputy Manager in APDCL, a Seniority List of incumbents in the cadre of Deputy Manager was published on 27.05.2019. The petitioner, although, holding a post of Deputy Manager within the cadre strength of Deputy Manager, as existing in the APDCL organization, his name was not Page No.# 10/22 included in the said Gradation List and accordingly, the petitioner after having submitted objections to the Seniority List so published, vide notice dated 27.05.2019, had approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 8371/2019, raising grievances in this connection. 4.7 Mr. Borthakur, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court appreciating the contentions raised before it by the learned Senior counsel for the APDCL, including the reliance placed on a policy decision as brought into effect with regard to inter-company movement of officials vide an Office Order dated 08.04.2016, had required the respondent authorities to consider the appeal, which was directed to be filed by the petitioner in the matter. 4.8 Mr. Borthakur, submits that the petitioner in his appeal had in details raised the manner in which his services was so considered after he was so appointed vide order dated 10.09.2005 as a Junior Engineer. 4.9 Mr. Borthakur, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities vide an order dated 05.12.2019, proceeded to reject the claim made by the petitioner in his appeal only on a superficial examination of the service status of the petitioner. He submits that the respondent authorities have not considered the manner in which the petitioner was initially transferred to the APDCL organization, vide the order dated 21.03.2007 and the subsequent confirmation of the services of the petitioner effected vide an order dated 17.10.2007. 4.10 Mr. Borthakur, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the confirmation/declaration of completion of probationary period of service by the Page No.# 11/22 petitioner, was permissible to be so done only by invoking the provisions of Rule 17 of the HR Manual of APDCL. He submits that in the event the services of the petitioner was confirmed in APDCL, the petitioner for all intent and purpose on the date of confirmation, must be deemed to be an employee of APDCL and not APGCL. He submits that a similar order confirming his services was not passed by the APGCL authorities. Accordingly, the petitioner after 16.10.2007, being treated to be a confirmed employee, who had satisfactorily completed his probationary period of service, such consideration being extended to the petitioner in APDCL, for all intent and purpose, the petitioner has to be deemed to be an employee of APDCL and not APGCL. 4.11 With regard to his promotion to the subsequent appointment to the post of Assistant Manager and also his re-designation as Deputy Manager, Mr. Borthakur, submits that the said benefits were required to be conferred upon the petitioner, in view of the fact that he had the requisite qualification and had completed the minimum requisite services, for being extended the said benefits. He submits that although, the said appointment was made by the authorities of APGCL, the subsequent developments taking place in the matter and the petitioner being again transferred to APDCL, would reveal that the petitioner was actually an employee of APDCL and was temporarily posted to APGCL. He submits that the confirmation effected in respect of the petitioner by the APGCL authorities, cannot be ignored, inasmuch as, the same had given a permanency in service to the petitioner in APDCL and the subsequent steps taken in respect of the petitioner till he was again brought back to the APDCL, vide order dated 08.12.2016, which again was in the interest of works, would reveal that the petitioner’s parent company, after his initial posting to APGCL, was all along being considered to be APDCL and not APGCL. Page No.# 12/22 4.12 Mr. Borthakur, has further submitted that while the petitioner was transferred to APDCL, vide order dated 21.03.2007, another employee Brojen Saikia, who was an employee of APDCL was transferred vide the same order to the APGCL service. He submits that although, the petitioner was required to move between the 2 (two) companies, said Brojen Saikia, w.e.f. the date he had assumed charge against a post in APGCL, in pursuance to the transfer order dated 21.03.2007, was continued in the services of APGCL, without there being any further order issued towards absorbing his such service in APGCL. He submits that Brojen Saikia has been given all his service benefits, including further movement to the higher grades in APGCL service itself, without raising any issue as is now being raised in respect of the petitioner by the APDCL authorities. 4.13 In this connection, Mr. Borthakur, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, has placed on record an order passed in respect of Brojen Saikia, on his completion of 4 (four) years of service as Assistant Manager, which is again contended to have been effected by the APGCL authorities, declaring him as Deputy Manager. He submits that the initial appointment of Brojen Saikia was in APDCL and not in APGCL. Accordingly, in view of the benefits extended to said Brojen Saikia, Mr. Borthakur submits that the inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the Seniority List of Deputy Managers in APDCL, was permissible. However, he submits that taking a hyper technical view in the matter, the APDCL authorities proceeded to take steps prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner, herein, while such steps have not been taken in respect of said Brojen Saikia and thereby, a discrimination came to be meted out to the petitioner. 4.14 In the above premises, Mr. Borthakur, learned Senior counsel for the Page No.# 13/22 petitioner submits that the order dated 05.12.2019, would mandate an interference from this Court, with a direction for continuing the services of the petitioner in APDCL and for inclusion of his name in the Seniority List of the Deputy Managers, working in APDCL. 5. Per contra, Mr. S P Sarma, learned Standing counsel, APDCL, has submitted that by the time, the selection of the petitioner against the post of Junior Engineer, had occasioned and an order appointing him was issued, the erstwhile ASEB was already unbundled into three distinct companies. The petitioner’s services was placed on his such selection with the APGCL authorities and it is for that reason, vide order dated 10.09.2005, the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer in the services of the APGCL. 5.1 Mr. Sarma, learned Standing counsel, APDCL submits that the initial appointment of the petitioner, being so effected in APGCL, he for all intent and purpose continued to be a member of the service of APGCL. Mr. Sarma, submits that basing on a request received from the petitioner for a transfer and posting at Tinsukia, such request being channelized through the APGCL authorities, the APDCL authorities had proceeded to issue an order dated 21.03.2007, posting the petitioner at Tingkhong Electric Sub-Division. He submits that the said transfer effected in respect of the petitioner was so effected on humanitarian grounds. 5.2 Mr. Sarma, learned Standing counsel, APDCL submits that the declaration of the petitioner’s services as confirmed, effected vide order dated 17.10.2007, was only as a matter of course and the same cannot be deemed to have the effect of absorbing the services of the petitioner in APDCL. Page No.# 14/22 5.3 Mr. Sarma, learned Standing counsel, APDCL submits that even if, it is held that vide order dated 17.10.2007, the services of the petitioner must be deemed to have been absorbed in APDCL, the subsequent appointment effected in respect of the petitioner, along with a probationary period being attached thereto, as Assistant Manager, being so effected by the APGCL authorities and the petitioner accepting the said appointment and joining again in the APGCL service, at least, w.e.f. 17.02.2010, the petitioner, w.e.f. 17.02.2010 must be deemed to be an employee of APGCL. Although, he submits that since the date of the initial appointment of the petitioner, the petitioner was always an employee of APGCL and not APDCL, although, there was an intermittent posting effected in his case on humanitarian grounds in APDCL. 5.4 Mr. Sarma, learned Standing counsel, APDCL, referring to the plea taken by the petitioner with regard to the continuation of Brojen Saikia in APGCL, submits that Brojen Saikia was also similarly appointed as an Assistant Manager, along with a probationary period on his such selection, by the APGCL authorities and accordingly, he also w.e.f. the date of his such appointment deemed to be absorbed in the services of the APGCL. Mr. Sarma, submits that both the petitioner and said Borjen Saikia were thereafter designated as Deputy Managers. He submits that Borjen Saikia, being now deemed to be absorbed in the services of APGCL, was continued in his services with the APGCL authorities. However, the petitioner again having made a request for a posting under APDCL at Tinsukia, considering his family issues, the APDCL authorities on the said request being channelized to it from the APGCL authorities, had issued the order dated 08.12.2016. 5.5 Mr. Sarma, further submits that after the issuance of the order dated Page No.# 15/22 08.12.2016, there is no material brought on record to demonstrate that the petitioner’s service was absorbed in APDCL. It is submitted that the petitioner was continuing in his services in APDCL, in terms of the order dated 08.12.2016, till passing of further orders in this connection by the concerned authorities. Accordingly, Mr. Sarma, submits that the petitioner was held to be ineligible for inclusion of his name in the Seniority List published of Deputy Managers working in APDCL. Mr. Sarma submits that on the matter being placed before the Joint Consultative company of the three companies, the services of the petitioner was reverted back to APGCL, vide an order dated 04.11.2019, with a further stipulation that the order dated 08.12.2016, transferring him to APDCL stood cancelled. He submits that any mistake committed by the APDCL authorities in the process of posting the petitioner in APDCL service, stood rectified in pursuance to the order dated 04.11.2019. 5.6 Mr. Sarma, learned Standing counsel, APDCL has further submitted that the competent authority of the APDCL, after a direction was issued by this Court vide order dated 15.11.2019 in WP(C) No. 8371/2019, to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Mr. Sarma, submits that the authorities after examining the service status of the petitioner in details and also considering the fact of appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Manager in APGCL in the year 2019 and his subsequent re-designation as Deputy Manager, therein, by also appreciating the fact that the petitioner was, thereafter, never absorbed in the service of APDCL, proceeded to reject his claim for inclusion in the rank of Deputy Manager. Mr. Sarma, accordingly, submits that the order dated 05.12.2019, being so passed after taking into consideration all relevant factors, the same would not mandate an interference from this Court. Page No.# 16/22 5.7 By referring to a notice dated 29.05.2019, Mr. Sarma, learned Standing counsel, APDCL has submitted that subsequent to his reversion to the APGCL, the name of the petitioner has been duly included in the Seniority List of Deputy Managers working in APGCL at the appropriate position. 5.8 In the above premises, Mr. Sarma, learned Standing counsel, APDCL submits that the claim made in the writ petition would not mandate an acceptance and the writ petition would be mandated to be dismissed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials brought on record. 7. The petitioner in pursuance to his selection for appointment as Junior Engineer by the erstwhile ASEB, was appointed in such capacity by the APGCL authorities, vide an order dated 10.09.2005. Such appointment came to be so effected by the APGCL authorities, inasmuch as, in the meanwhile, erstwhile ASEB was unbundled into 3 separate companies and the petitioner on his selection was so placed in APGCL. 8. The petitioner was thereafter, vide order dated 21.03.2007, transferred and posted from Namrup Thermal Power Station under APGCL to Tingkhong Electric Sub-Division in place of one Brojen Saikia, who was transferred from Tingkhong Electric Sub-Division to Namrup Thermal Power Station. The petitioner in terms of his said order of transfer assumed the charge of his post at Tingkhong Electric Sub-Division and continued his services therein. 9. The initial appointment of the petitioner as a Junior Engineer, effected vide the order dated 10.09.2005, being so effected with a condition that he would remain on probation for a period of 2 (two) years, the petitioner having Page No.# 17/22 successfully completed his probationary period, and he on the date of completion of his probationary period being posted in APDCL, the APDCL authorities vide order dated 16.10.2007, proceeded to declare that the service of the petitioner during his probationary period was found to be satisfactory and was permitted to continue to draw his annual increments, w.e.f. 16.10.2007. 10. It is the normal practice that declaration of completion of probationary period of service is to be so done by his employer. The successful completion of probationary period of service by the petitioner having been declared by the APDCL authorities, it can be deemed that the petitioner at the relevant point of time was reckoned to be an employee under APDCL. Accordingly, the submission of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that on declaration being made by the APDCL authorities of successful completion by the petitioner of his probationary period of service, a permanency was given to the petitioner’s services in APDCL, has merit. 11. However, what is to be noticed is as to whether the petitioner, thereafter, also can be construed to have continued as a permanent employee under APDCL. 12. The ASEB in its meeting held on 22.01.2007, had incorporated a provision in the ASEB Engineering Service Regulations, 1973, providing for a progression in service to Junior Engineer, who have the requisite qualification mandated for recruitment as Assistant Engineer. Such Junior Engineers were held to be eligible for appointment to the cadre of Assistant Engineer upon completion of 4 (four) years of continuous satisfactory service as Junior Engineers. 13. The petitioner being eligible for appointment as Assistant Engineer, in Page No.# 18/22 terms of the said policy decision of ASEB, the case of the petitioner was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee of ASEB. On a recommendation being made in favour of the petitioner for such appointment, a vacancy being available in APGCL for the purpose, the APGCL authorities proceeded to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Manager and posted him in such capacity to Namrup Thermal Power Station, vide issuance of an order dated 17.02.2010. The said appointment was so effected with a fresh period of probationary service for 1 (one) year. 14. The petitioner, without any objection accepted the appointment effected in his case as Assistant Manager, vide the order dated 17.02.2010 and assumed the charge of the post of Assistant Manager at Namrup Thermal Power Station and continued his services in such capacity. The petitioner having completed 4 (four) years of continuous satisfactory service as Assistant Engineer, he was declared as a Deputy Manager, w.e.f. 12.03.2014. Accordingly, the petitioner upon his appointment as Assistant Manager must be deemed to have again become an employee of APGCL. 15. The petitioner after having been declared to be a Deputy Manager, had submitted an application for his transfer to Tinsukia under APDCL. The said request of the petitioner was duly considered and he was vide order dated 08.12.2016 transferred and posted to T&C Division, Tinsukia, APDCL. Accordingly, w.e.f. the date the petitioner joined against the post, he was transferred to vide the order dated 08.12.2016, his services came to be placed again under APDCL. 16. While the petitioner was continuing in APDCL as a Deputy Manager, the APDCL authorities published a seniority of the incumbents in the cadre of Page No.# 19/22 Deputy Manager in APDCL. However, the name of the petitioner was not included, therein. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the APDCL authorities raising a grievance in this connection. 17. The APDCL authorities on examining the grievance raised by the petitioner, proceeded vide a communication dated 31.07.2019, to reject the claim of the petitioner for inclusion of his name in the seniority list of Deputy Manager working in APDCL. It was contended in the said communication that the petitioner having been appointed as an Assistant Manager in APGCL followed by declaring him as a Deputy Manager by the APGCL authorities, his claim for inclusion in the seniority list of Deputy Manager working in APDCL would not mandate acceptance. 18. Thereafter, vide an order dated 04.11.2019, the petitioner, in terms of the recommendations made by the Joint Consultative Committee, came to be reverted back to his parent company APGCL. Further, the transfer and posting effected in respect of the petitioner vide order dated 08.12.2016 came to be cancelled. 19. The petitioner being aggrieved by the non-inclusion of his name in the seniority list of Deputy Manager, working in APDCL as well as his reversion to APGCL as ordered vide order dated 04.11.2019, had approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 8371/2019. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.11.2019, proceeded to dispose of the said writ petition by directing the Managing Director, APDCL, to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner in the matter, on 11.11.2019. It was further provided that till disposal of the said appeal, the order dated 04.11.2019 reverting the petitioner to APGCL be not given effect to, if not already released. Page No.# 20/22 20. The respondent authorities, thereafter, considered the appeal preferred by the petitioner and vide order dated 05.12.2019, rejected the claim made by the petitioner, therein. 21. A perusal of the order dated 05.12.2019 would reveal that the authorities of APDCL have held therein, that after the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Manager in APGCL and his subsequent declaration as Deputy Manager in APGCL, the petitioner was not absorbed in the services of APDCL. Accordingly, it was held that the question of inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the seniority list of Deputy Manager in APDCL would not arise. Reference was also made to the clarifications as set out in the communication dated 31.07.2019. In the said order dated 05.12.2019, it was further highlighted that the matter was discussed in the meeting of the Joint Consultative Committee, consisting of representatives of all the 3 (three) companies and it was decided to revert the petitioner to his parent company, i.e., APGCL. 22. This Court on a perusal of the order dated 05.12.2019 and the communication dated 31.07.2019 referred to therein, finds that the authorities in the APDCL have held that the petitioner on his appointment as Assistant Manager, followed by his designation as Deputy Manager by the APGCL authorities, was a member of the service of APGCL. The said reasoning is not found by this Court to be erroneous, inasmuch as, on his appointment as Assistant Manager, vide order dated 17.02.2010, issued by the APGCL authorities, the petitioner is found to have accepted the same. On his joining against the post of Assistant Manager on probation, the petitioner must be deemed to have become a member of the service in APGCL. Further, the petitioner was redesignated as Deputy Manager, in APGCL. The appointment of Page No.# 21/22 the petitioner as an Assistant Manager, on probation is found to be a fresh appointment and the same being effected in APGCL for all intent and purpose, the petitioner is to be deemed to be a member of the service in APGCL. Further, from the materials brought on record, it is seen that the petitioner has been included in the seniority list of Deputy Manager serving in APGCL. Accordingly, this Court holds that the parent company of the petitioner is APGCL and not APDCL. 23. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the transfer of the petitioner to APDCL, as effected vide the order dated 08.12.2016, being so effected on the own request of the petitioner and the same not being followed by issuance of any order absorbing the petitioner in the service of APDCL, the said transfer cannot be held to have effected a change in the parent company of the petitioner and he during his period of service in APDCL after issuance of the order dated 08.12.2016, must be held to have continued as a member of APGCL. 24. At this stage, this Court would consider the plea raised by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner with regard to the manner in which the respondents have considered continuation of said Brojen Saikia in APGCL, after he was transferred there from APDCL vide order dated 21.02.2007. A discrimination is projected to have been meted out to the petitioner in this connection. 25. From the materials brought on record, this Court finds that said Brojen Saikia was also appointed as an Assistant Manager by APGCL and on completion of 4 (four) years of continuous satisfactory service by him, he was designated by the APGCL authorities as Deputy Manager, vide an order dated 30.10.2024. Page No.# 22/22 Accordingly, in respect of Brojen Saikia, he having been appointed as Assistant Manager by APGCL and being subsequently designated as Deputy Manager by the APGCL authorities, he is also deemed to have been absorbed as an employee of APGCL and such absorption being done in a manner similar to the one done in respect of the petitioner, herein, no discrimination is found to be meted out to the petitioner in this connection. Accordingly, the plea raised by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in this connection stands rejected. 26. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court does not find the reasons assigned by the respondent authorities in the order dated 05.12.2019 to be erroneous and accordingly, the said order is held to not mandate any interference from this Court. 27. Accordingly, for the reasons assigned hereinabove, the writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and consequently, the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant