Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010171062026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4446/2026 SRI PRATUL BAISHYA SON OF LATE MUKUNDA BAISHYA PERMANENT RESIDENT OF H.NO-9, TETELIA, NEAR APOLLO EXCELCARE HOSPITAL, GREEN VIEW COLONY, PO-MALIGAON, PIN-781011 VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER, N. F. RAILWAY, MALIGAON. GUWAHATI-11. 2:GENERAL MANAGER P N. F. RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI-11 3:CHIEF PERSONAL OFFICER N. F. RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI- 11. 4:SENIOR DCM RANGIA DISTRICT KAMRUP 781365 5:PAPIYA BHATTACHARJEE ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL MANAGER OFFICE OF SR. DCM RANGIA N.F. RAILWAY DISTRICT KAMRUP, 781365 Page No.# 2/4 6:PRANJAL BORAH ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL MANAGER OFFICE OF SR. DCM RANGIA N.F. RAILWAY DISTRICT KAMRUP 78136 For the petitioner : Mr. D.K. Nath, Advocate For the respondent(s) : Ms. B. Sharma, C.G.C. – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 18-08-2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.) We have heard Mr. D.K. Nath, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. B. Sharma, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 10.08.2026 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in O.A. No.45/2026 with Misc. Application No.57/2026, whereby the Tribunal has refused to interfere with his transfer from Rangia to Alipur Duar on the ground of mala fides and also violation of the transfer policy of the Railways. Mr. Nath submits that under the direction of the Tribunal, a representation has been filed before the competent authority, which Page No.# 3/4 has yet not been disposed off and, in the meantime, his O.A. has been dismissed by the Tribunal. Mr. Nath further submits that within a short span of time, he has been transferred twice: once from Guwahati to Rangia on the ground of his having been promoted to the post of Group-B from Group-C post, requiring his transfer, and, again he was transferred within a period of 1 year 4 months, notwithstanding the fact that he has a child studying in Class-XII who would be appearing in the Board examination in February, 2027. However, none of these grounds, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner, weighed with the Tribunal. The learned Advocate for the petitioner referred to the “Policy Guidelines on Transfer & Posting of Officers in Traffic Transportation and Commercial Department in Zonal Railways” as also the policy prohibiting the authorities from disturbing such employees whose children are to appear in final examination in school. The further contention of the petitioner is that he has been transferred only to accommodate others, about which no definite proof has been offered. Be that as it may, after some arguments, the learned Advocate for the petitioner seeks to withdraw this writ petition awaiting the decision of the competent authority on the representation preferred by the petitioner under the order of the Tribunal. Ms. B. Sharma, learned Central Government Counsel submits that Page No.# 4/4 the representation preferred by the petitioner shall be disposed off within a period of 3 (three) weeks. Ms. B. Sharma also submits that though the transfer order has been made on administrative ground, which is not liable to be interfered with, but considering the liberty given to the petitioner by the Tribunal, the representation shall be considered taking into account all aspects of the matter. With the afore-noted observations, this writ petition stands withdrawn and disposed off accordingly. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant