Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010195342026 2026:GAU-AS:14682 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4986/2026 MD. KUDDUS ALI SON OF LATE JAHUR ALI, RESIDING AT CHANDMARI, NABAGIRI, HOUSE NO. 24, BY LANE NO. 4, P.O.- SILPUKHURI, GUWAHATI-781003, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. VERSUS THE ASSAM STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (ASWC) AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ASWD, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781005. 2:SHRI BIMAL DEKA THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (ASWC) DISPUR ASSAM PIN-78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY, MR A CHAKRABORTY,MR. S K CHAKRABORTY Advocate for the Respondent : MR. B D CHOWDHURY(R1,2), MR. R SEKHAR(R1,2),MR. K BARMAN(R1,2),MS. R SAHU(R1,2) Page No.# 2/10 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE Date on which judgment is reserved : 01.10.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : N/A Whether the pronouncement is of the operative of the judgment? : No Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral) Heard Mr. P. K. Roy, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. A. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Sekhar, learned Standing counsel along with Mr. R. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, Assam State Warehousing Corporation. 2. The challenge made in the present writ petition is to the order dated 21.08.2026 passed by the Managing Director, Assam State Warehousing Corporation, whereby the petitioner, a Grade-IV employee/Peon of the Assam State Warehousing Corporation, has been transferred from the ASWC Maidamgaon General Centre, Guwahati to the ASWC Machkhowa Centre, Dhemaji. 3. The petitioner’s case in a nutshell is that he has been serving under the Assam State Warehousing Corporation for about 25 years and, for the substantial period of his service, remained posted within Kamrup (Metro). At the relevant time, he was working as a Grade-IV employee/Peon in the Finance & Accounts section at the Head Office. By order dated 06.05.2026, he was Page No.# 3/10 transferred from the Head Office to the Maidamgaon General Centre, Guwahati, where he joined and continued to discharge his duties. 4. Within a short period thereafter, by the impugned order dated 21.08.2026, the petitioner was transferred from Maidamgaon, Guwahati to the ASWC Machkhowa Centre, Dhemaji, which was his first posting outside Kamrup (Metro). The petitioner states that the said transfer, having been made within a short interval of his earlier transfer, caused him considerable difficulty, particularly in view of the medical condition of the petitioner and his mother. He accordingly submitted a representation dated 24.08.2026 before the competent authority seeking reconsideration of the transfer. The petitioner was thereafter released from his existing place of posting on 27.08.2026. Aggrieved by the said transfer, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. Mr. P. K. Roy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the power of transfer available to the Corporation is not disputed. The grievance, however, is with regard to the manner in which the said power has been exercised. It is submitted that the petitioner had remained posted within Kamrup (Metro) for about 25 years and had already been transferred from the Head Office to Maidamgaon, Guwahati by order dated 06.05.2026. Within a short period thereafter, he was again transferred to Machkhowa, Dhemaji by the impugned order dated 21.08.2026. 6. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner was working in the Finance & Accounts section and that no material has been placed to show any particular requirement for posting an office Peon at the Machkhowa Centre which necessitated the transfer of the petitioner. It is submitted that the Page No.# 4/10 respondents have referred to the work relating to NFSA and mustard seed procurement, but have not explained why the petitioner was required to be transferred for such work. 7. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner has relied upon the reports published in Axomiya Pratidin dated 09.07.2026 and 27.08.2026, wherein allegations were reported concerning the alleged misuse of official power by respondent No. 2, including the alleged use of a private vehicle owned in the name of his wife for the purposes of the Corporation. It is submitted that the petitioner, who was then posted as an office Peon in the Finance and Accounts Branch of the Head Office, came to be suspected by respondent No. 2 of having disclosed information relating to such matters to the print media. 8. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner was working in the Finance and Accounts section and that one Shri Rituraj Sharma, who was heading the said section, had also come under suspicion in relation to the alleged disclosure of information and was transferred to Tezpur. It is submitted that the petitioner, being a Grade-IV employee/Peon, had no access to the financial records or confidential materials and was nevertheless suspected of having disclosed information to the print media. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that, prior to the impugned transfer, respondent No. 2 had called the petitioner to his chamber, where the petitioner was rebuked and warned that he would be transferred to a remote place. 9. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that the petitioner has a longstanding cardiac ailment and relies upon medical documents dated 13.10.2008 and 09.01.2012. It is submitted that the petitioner had disclosed his medical condition as well as the condition of his mother in the representation dated Page No.# 5/10 24.08.2026. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the transfer to Machkhowa, Dhemaji, would cause considerable hardship to the petitioner, particularly in view of his medical condition and the medical condition of his aged mother, as pleaded by him. 10. Mr. R. Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel, ASWC, submits that the petitioner is holding a transferable post of Peon which is also incorporated in the petitioner’s regularisation order dated 02.01.2012, which makes the petitioner liable to transfer in accordance with the service conditions. It is submitted that transfer is an incident of service and that the petitioner, having accepted the terms governing his service, cannot claim a right to remain posted at any particular place. 11. Learned Standing Counsel submits that there is no provision in the Staff Regulations which exempts a Grade-IV employee from transfer outside the district. The petitioner has served for about 25 years and the present transfer is his first posting outside Kamrup (Metro). It is submitted that the transfer to Machkhowa is temporary and has been made having regard to shortage of manpower and the requirements relating to NFSA and mustard seed procurement. 12. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the allegation regarding the petitioner having been called to the chamber of respondent No. 2 and threatened with transfer has been denied. It is submitted that no particulars such as the date or time of the alleged incident, or any independent material supporting the allegation, have been placed on record. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the matter relating to Shri Rituraj Sharma is separate and has no connection with the petitioner. It is submitted that the Page No.# 6/10 proceedings relating to Shri Rituraj Sharma arose out of separate allegations concerning financial and administrative matters and that the petitioner was not subjected to any departmental inquiry, charge or investigation in relation thereto. 13. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the newspaper reports relied upon by the petitioner cannot establish mala fide. It is pointed out that the first transfer order dated 06.05.2026 was issued before the newspaper report dated 09.07.2026. The subsequent report dated 27.08.2026 was published after the impugned order dated 21.08.2026. It is submitted that the reports, therefore, cannot establish the motive behind the impugned transfer. 14. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 24.08.2026 before the Chairman, Board of Directors, and that the same was pending consideration when the writ petition was filed. It is submitted that the representation would be considered and disposed of in accordance with law and the applicable administrative guidelines. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the impugned transfer is non-punitive and is not connected with any disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the transfer was made on account of operational requirements and shortage of manpower at the outer centres, including the requirement of experienced Grade-IV staff at Machkhowa in connection with NFSA and mustard seed procurement operations. 15. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in reply, submits that the existence of the power of transfer is not in dispute, but the exercise of such power is under challenge. It is reiterated that the respondents have not shown any specific requirement for posting the petitioner as an office Peon at Page No.# 7/10 Machkhowa and that the petitioner’s medical circumstances were placed before the competent authority through the representation dated 24.08.2026. 16. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record. 17. The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by his transfer from the ASWC Maidamgaon General Centre, Guwahati to the ASWC Machkhowa Centre, Dhemaji, by the impugned order dated 21.08.2026. Prior to the impugned order, the petitioner had been serving at the ASWC Head Office, Guwahati and was transferred therefrom to the ASWC Maidamgaon General Centre, Guwahati by order dated 06.05.2026. Thus, within a short period of his transfer from the Head Office to Maidamgaon, Guwahati, the petitioner was again transferred to Machkhowa, Dhemaji. The challenge is not to the existence of the Corporation’s power to transfer its employees, but to the manner in which that power is stated to have been exercised in the facts of the present case. The respondents, on the other hand, have justified the transfer with reference to the applicable service conditions and the administrative requirements at the Machkhowa Centre. 18. Clause 12(vii) of the Assam State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1989, provides that a member of the service shall be liable to be transferred in the interest of the Corporation if the appointing authority so decides. The said provision further stipulates that the employee shall have no option in the matter of such transfer and posting. The petitioner’s regularisation order dated 02.01.2012 also contains a condition making him liable to transfer in accordance with the applicable service conditions. 19. The law regarding interference with an order of transfer is well settled. In Page No.# 8/10 Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 357, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that transfer is an incident of service and that the question as to who should be transferred and where is for the appropriate authority to decide. Ordinarily, the Court does not interfere with an order of transfer unless the order is shown to be vitiated by mala fide or is made in violation of a statutory provision. 20. In the present case, no statutory provision has been brought to the notice of the Court which prohibits transfer of a Grade-IV employee from one district to another. Clause 12(vii) of the Staff Regulations, on the contrary, permits such transfer in the interest of the Corporation. The fact that the petitioner had remained posted within Kamrup (Metro) for a long period does not, by itself, create a right in his favour to continue at the same place; rather, it fortifies the ground for transfer. 21. The chronology, however, requires to be noticed. The petitioner was first transferred by order dated 06.05.2026 from the Head Office to Maidamgaon, Guwahati. He joined at the transferred place. Thereafter, on 21.08.2026, he was again transferred, this time to Machkhowa, Dhemaji. Thus, the second transfer followed the first within a short period and took the petitioner outside Kamrup (Metro) for the first time during his service. 22. The fact that the second transfer was made within a few months of the first transfer does not, by itself, render the order invalid. At the same time, the circumstances surrounding such a transfer can be examined to the limited extent necessary to determine whether the order suffers from any legal infirmity or has been issued for a purpose other than the administrative purpose stated by the employer. Page No.# 9/10 23. In this regard, the petitioner has referred to the alleged conversation with the respondent No. 2 prior to the impugned transfer. The respondents have denied the occurrence as pleaded by the petitioner. The material placed before the Court does not contain independent material establishing that the impugned transfer was issued pursuant to the alleged threat. The allegation, therefore, cannot by itself be made the basis for quashing the transfer order. 24. The newspaper reports relied upon by the petitioner have also been considered. The reports are relied upon as circumstances from which an improper motive is sought to be inferred. However, the first transfer order dated 06.05.2026 had already been issued before the report dated 09.07.2026. The report dated 27.08.2026 was published after the impugned order dated 21.08.2026. The chronology of the reports and the two transfer orders, therefore, does not establish that the impugned order was issued for the reason suggested by the petitioner. 25. The contention regarding the requirement of an office Peon at Machkhowa also has to be considered in the context of the administrative explanation given by the Corporation. The Corporation has stated that the posting has been made on account of shortage of manpower and the requirements relating to NFSA and mustard seed procurement. The assessment of the Corporation regarding deployment of its employees at different centres is ordinarily within its administrative domain. In the absence of a statutory restriction or material establishing mala fide, the Court would not substitute its own assessment for that of the employer. 26. The medical circumstances placed by the petitioner stand on a somewhat different footing. The petitioner has relied upon medical documents dated Page No.# 10/10 13.10.2008 and 09.01.2012 and has referred to his own medical condition as well as that of his mother in the representation dated 24.08.2026. These circumstances do not, by themselves, invalidate the transfer order. They are, however, matters which the competent authority can consider while dealing with the representation submitted by the petitioner. 27. The representation dated 24.08.2026 was pending when the writ petition was filed. In the circumstances, the representation can appropriately be considered by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable service conditions and the administrative requirements of the Corporation. 28. In view of the above discussion, in my considered view, no sufficient ground is made out for interfering with the impugned order dated 21.08.2026. The challenge to the said order is accordingly rejected. However, the competent authority of the Assam State Warehousing Corporation shall consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 24.08.2026 by passing a reasoned order, taking into consideration the medical documents and the difficulties pleaded by the petitioner in accordance with the applicable service conditions. The exercise shall be completed within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Till the representation is considered and disposed of by the competent authority, the status quo in respect of the petitioner’s place of posting, shall be maintained. 29. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms above. There shall be no order as to cost(s). JUDGE Comparing Assistant