Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010181472026 2026:GAU-AS:13186-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/317/2026 YOGENDRA SINGH CHAUDHARY S/O SRI KANHAIYA LAL, RESIDENT OF 103/59, SECTOR 10, PRATAP NAGAR, SANGANER, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN- 302033. VERSUS 1.THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS. THROUGH THE SECRETARY (H AND FW), MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, ROOM NO. 11102, C- WING, NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110011. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT OF ASSAM ROOM NO. 123 1ST FLOOR F-BLOCK ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM- 781006. 3:THE MISSION DIRECTOR NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION (NHM) ASSAM OFFICE OF THE MISSION DIRECTOR SAIKIA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX SRINAGAR PATH CHRISTIANBASTI G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI- 78100 For the Appellant(s) : Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. S. Hoque, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. I. Borthakur, Advocate for respondent No.1. : Mr. B. Gogoi, Additional Advocate General, Assam for respondent Nos.2 & 3. Page No.# 2/4 –B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 10.09.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. S. Hoque, learned Advocate for the appellant; Mr. I. Borthakur, learned Advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. The appellant has questioned the order dated 10.08.2026 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.3906/2026, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed at the motion stage itself. 3. The appellant was appointed as a Community Health Officer on contractual basis under the National Health Mission (in short, “NHM”), Assam on 17.05.2025. According to him, the appointment letter was never handed over to him and, therefore, he did not have any idea about the contents of the terms of the contract. 4. Shortly after joining as a Community Health Officer, the appellant was diagnosed with depression and anxiety distress. He was treated at Jaipur by his family doctor, which treatment required regular therapeutic sessions with the same treating doctor. 5. The contention of the appellant before the Writ Court was that Page No.# 3/4 because of his being posted in West Karbi Anglong, Assam, where he resided alone and away from his family, which is located at Jaipur, he faced loneliness and his medical situation worsened. The appellant thereafter made a representation to the NHM authorities for transferring his contractual engagement from Assam to NHM, Jaipur, Rajasthan on medical grounds. 6. When this representation was not responded, he preferred WP(C) No.2285/2026 before this Court, wherein a Bench of this Court had directed the authorities to examine his claim and pass a speaking order within a period of 30 (thirty) days. 7. The said speaking order was passed, as directed by this Court, on 06.07.2026 by the Mission Director, NHM, Assam, rejecting the request of the appellant. The ground for such rejection was that inter-State transfer of contractual personnel under the NHM, Assam is not permissible under the existing administrative framework. The appellant was directed to join his place of posting within 7(seven) days, failing which disciplinary proceedings would be contemplated. 8. The appellant then filed WP(C)No.3906/ 2026 before this Court seeking annulment of the speaking order referred to above and further seeking a direction for his transfer to Jaipur. At that stage, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition in view of the fact that the administrative framework did not permit any inter-State transfer. 9. Mr. P.K. Roychudhury, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant seeks to assail the impugned judgment on the ground that the National Health Mission is a Central Government Scheme which may not Page No.# 4/4 be having any specific inter-State transfer policy for contractual personnel but Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) provides for inter-State transfer on medical grounds. 10. Before the Writ Court, a Government of India Office Memorandum was brought on record, which provided that in cases of persons with disabilities, reasonable accommodation be made as far as possible, which would be in keeping with the concept of a model employer as also the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 11. However, the learned Single Judge by the impugned order dismissed the writ petition holding that the grievance of the appellant could not have been considered as it was not appropriate to make a request for such inter-State transfer of a contractual employee. The issue would, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge, fall in the domain of respective States and no parallel could have been drawn with other Scheme of the Central Government. 12. For the request made by the appellant, to be absolutely unjustified, we find no merit in this appeal. 13. Thus, while agreeing with decision of the learned Single Judge, we dismiss this appeal in limine. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant