Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010178792026 2026:GAU-AS:11990 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4526/2026 NIDHIR RANJAN ROY S/O LATE RAMESH CHANDRA ROY, R/O 2ND LINK ROAD, LANE NO.4, HOUSE NO.42, SILCHAR, P.O. LINK ROAD, DISTRICT- CACHAR, (ASSAM), PIN 788006 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, POWER (ELECTRICITY) DEPARTMENT, ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06 2:THE CHAIRMAN ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED BIJULI BHAWAN PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI-1 3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED BIJULI BHAWAN PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI-1 4:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HRA) ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED BIJULI BHAWAN PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI-1 5:THE GENERAL MANAGER SILCHAR REVENUE ZONES Page No.# 2/5 CAR APDCL RADHAMADHAV ROAD BILPAR SILCHAR DISTRICT CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788005 6:THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER SILCHAR-1/SILCHAR-II ELECTRICAL DIVISION CAR APDCL MEHERPUR SILCHAR DISTRICT CACHAR ASSAM PIN 78801 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B D DAS, P ADHIKARI,MS K TAYE,G UDDIN,MR H I CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER Date : 21.08.2026 Heard Mr. B. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. G. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL. [2.] Having regard to the nature of grievance projected by the petitioner the writ petition is taken up for disposal at this stage. [3.] It is the case of the petitioner that he is working as a Divisional Manager under the APDCL and he is aggrieved with the Office Order dated 18.08.2026, Page No.# 3/5 by which he has been transferred to the Office of the Assistant General Manager, Central Stores Division, Silchar vide order dated 18.08.2026. According to the petitioner he was transferred from the Office of the AGM Central Stores Division, Silchar as a Sub-Divisional Engineer in Udharbond Electrical Sub- Division vide Office Order dated 13.02.2026. Prior to such transfer he had served for about 3 years in the Office of the AGM Central Stores Division, Silchar. Barely after 6 months, the petitioner has been transferred as SDE, Sonai Electrical Sub-Division vide Office Order dated 12.08.2026. However, before the order could be implemented, the impugned Office Order dated 18.08.2026 came to be issued modifying his transfer to Sonai Electrical Sub-Division to that of the Office of AGM Central Stores Division, Silchar. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the manner in which transfer order have been issued in quick succession is arbitrary against the transfer policy followed by the APDCL, wherein, a tenure of posting in a particular posting place is for 3 years. He submits that although the petitioner had submitted a representation to recall his transfer order to the Office of the AGM Central Stores Division Silchar on 18.08.2026, but, as there is no response from the respondent authority concerned, he is before this Court. [4.] Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL on the other hand submits that the Office Memorandum dated 14.08.2015 which prescribed that the minimum tenure of posting in a particular place is 3 years has been recalled by an Office Order dated 14.12.2021, issued by the Chief General Manager (HRA) APDCL. He further submits that the transfer order has been issued in the interest of work and in fact the order dated 18.08.2026 is only an order partially modifying earlier order dated 12.08.2026 and therefore, it is not a case of frequent transfer. He further submits that in fact the distance from present place Page No.# 4/5 of posting at Udharbond Electrical Sub-Division to the Office of the AGM Central Stores Division Silchar is barely 17 kms and therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to have a legitimate grievance. The learned Standing Counsel has also relied upon the Apex Court decision in SC Saxena Vs. Union of India and Ors. (2006) 9 SCC 583 to contend that an employee is required to join the new place of posting and then only make a representation. He therefore submits that the petitioner ought to join the place of posting first then seek an appropriate remedy either by way of filing a representation or otherwise. [5.] Mr. B. D. Das, learned counsel however submits that the manner in which the transfer order has been issued cannot but be termed as frequent transfer and such an exercise can be done only for bona-fide reason and in public interest. A Division Bench of this Court in Shivapada Bhattacharjee Vs. State of Assam and Ors. (1994) 1 GauLJ 307 had in this regard made an observation that Courts can always deprecate frequent, unscheduled and unreasonable transfers which can uproot a family, cause irreparable harm to Government servant, disrupt the education of children and lead to numerous other complications and problems. Therefore, the exercise of power has to be based on honesty, bona-fide and reasonably in public interest. [6.] Considering the above submissions and having regard to the fact that the petitioner on 18.08.2026 submitted a representation before the Chief General Manager (HRA) APDCL, this Court is of the considered view of the same shall be considered by the said authority within a time frame. Accordingly, without expressing anything on merit, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Chief General Manager, HRA to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 18.08.2026 and thereafter, take a decision by passing an appropriate order. Such a decision be taken within a period of 10 (ten) days Page No.# 5/5 from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. [7.] Till disposal of the said representation, the respondent authorities shall not take any coercive steps. [8.] With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant