Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010007672026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/307/2026 MS. SHWETA BHATTACHARYA D/O- DIBYA SHANKAR BHATTACHARYA, H NO. 255, BEHIND DATAMATION G S ROAD, NEAR BORA SERVICE, P.O.- ULUBARI, P.S. PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI, DIST.- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN- 781007 VERSUS THDC INDIA LIMITED AND 3 ORS (THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR) GANGA BHAWAN, PRAGATIPURAM, BY PASS ROAD, RISHIKESH- 249201 (UTTARAKHAND) 2:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (PROJECTS) CORPORATE OFFICE BYE PASS ROAD PRAGATIPURAM RISHIKESH- 249201 (UTTARAKHAND) 3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HR AND A) CORPORATE OFFICE BYE PASS ROAD PRAGATIPURAM RISHIKESH- 249201 (UTTARAKHAND) 4:THE GENERAL MANAGER APP KALAI-II NOGEN CHOWLU COMPLEX NEAR CIRCUIT HOUSE NAMSAI ARUNACHAL PRADESH 79210 Page No.# 2/8 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K SAIKIA, MR D.S. BHATTACHARYA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. B J MUKHERJEE(R-1 TO 4), MS R SAHA(R-1 TO 4) Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/1621/2026 SHWETA BHATTACHARYA D/O DIBYA SHANKAR BHATTACHARYA H NO. 255 BEHIND DATAMATION G S ROAD NEAR BORA SERVICE P.O.- ULUBARI P.S.- PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM PIN 781007. VERSUS THDC INDIA LIMITED THROUGH CHAIRMAN MANAGING DIRECTOR GANGA BHAWAN PRAGATIPURAM BY PASS ROAD RISHIKESH-249201 UTTARAKHAND 2:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (PROJECTS) CORPORATE OFFICE BYE PASS ROAD PRAGATIPURAM RISHIKESH- 249201 (UTTARAKHAND) 3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HR AND A) CORPORATE OFFICE BYE PASS ROAD PRAGATIPURAM RISHIKESH- 249201 (UTTARAKHAND) 4:THE GENERAL MANAGER APP Page No.# 3/8 KALAI-II NOGEN CHOWLU COMPLEX NEAR CIRCUIT HOUSE NAMSAI ARUNACHAL PRADESH 792103 ------------ Advocate for : MR. S K SAIKIA Advocate for : MR. B J MUKHERJEE appearing for THDC INDIA LIMITED Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/1330/2026 SHWETA BHATTACHARYA D/O- DIBYA SHANKAR BHATTACHARYA H NO. 255 BEHIND DATAMATION G S ROAD NEAR BORA SERVICE P.O.- ULUBARI P.S. PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI DIST.- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN- 781007 VERSUS THDC INDIA LIMITED AND 3 ORS (THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR) GANGA BHAWAN PRAGATIPURAM BY PASS ROAD RISHIKESH- 249201 (UTTARAKHAND) 2:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (PROJECTS) CORPORATE OFFICE BYE PASS ROAD PRAGATIPURAM RISHIKESH- 249201 (UTTARAKHAND) 3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HR AND A) CORPORATE OFFICE BYE PASS ROAD PRAGATIPURAM RISHIKESH- 249201 (UTTARAKHAND) 4:THE GENERAL MANAGER Page No.# 4/8 APP KALAI-II NOGEN CHOWLU COMPLEX NEAR CIRCUIT HOUSE NAMSAI ARUNACHAL PRADESH 792103 ------------ Advocate for : MR. S K SAIKIA Advocate for : MR. B J MUKHERJEE appearing for THDC INDIA LIMITED AND 3 ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 24.06. 2026 Heard Mr. D. S. Bhattacharya learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B. J. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. The petitioner before this Court is an employee working under the respondent authority. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was posted at Namsai in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. However, because of some personal issues, she applied for leave and while she was on leave, the petitioner was informed that she had been transferred from Namsai to Rishikesh in the State of Uttarakhand vide impugned transfer order dated 02.01.2026. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this transfer order has been issued in violation of the transfer guidelines issued by the Company. It is Page No.# 5/8 submitted that as per Clause 6 in the said guidelines, it is provided that the normal tenure of posting will be 5 years for Executives and Supervisors and that ordinarily an employees will be considered for transfer only after they have spent a minimum period of 5 years at one location. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was posted at Namsai, Arunachal Pradesh on 22.01.2024, therefore as per Clause 6 of the said guidelines, her tenure at that place would ordinarily expire only in the year 2029 and in terms of the said guidelines itself she ought not to have been considered for transfer without having spent the minimum period of 5 years. It is also submitted that without giving any grounds or reasons, and while the petitioner was on leave, the impugned order of transfer has been issued. Being aggrieved by the said transfer, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. By virtue of an order passed by this Court while issuing notice, the impugned transfer order has been suspended or stayed, and the same is still subsisting. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the transfer order was issued in violation of the conditions prescribed under Clause 6 of the transfer and posting guidelines, and the ground for such transfer is exigency of service, which according to the petitioner is not supported by the facts pleaded in the writ petition. 6. Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, strongly objects to the submissions made. It is submitted that these transfer guidelines have been framed by the Company and do not give any Page No.# 6/8 enforceable right to any employee. It is further submitted that these guidelines specifically provide that the transfers can be resorted to in exigencies of service. It is submitted that because of resignation of some employees holding the same rank/ position as the writ petitioner, she was required to be transferred to her new place of posting. It is also submitted that apart from the writ petitioner; other employees have also been transferred. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the law laid down by the Apex Court in respect of judicial review of transfer order is very clear that ordinarily the Court will not interfered with the transfer order, unless the same is mala fide and arbitrary in nature. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and the pleadings available before this Court, this Court is of the view that while the transfer guidelines categorically lay down the procedure in the manner of transfer and also that the Department is within its rights to transfer any person ordinarily and specifically because of exigencies of service, the fact remains that the writ petitioner was on leave on personal ground and certain allegations are levelled against some of the officers in the Department, causing undue harassment to the petitioner while rendering her services. Therefore, the petitioner seeks to project a case of malice in the issuance of the impugned transfer order. 9. Considering the issues and the facts pleaded before this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents, being a Public Sector Undertaking, are conscious of hardships and difficulties faced by their employees. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice if the petitioner is permitted to ventilate her Page No.# 7/8 grievances before the respondent authorities by filing a fresh representation. In the event, the writ petitioner doing so, the respondent authorities will sympathetically consider these grievances as may be urged in the representation and thereafter pass appropriate orders. While disposing of the representation, the respondent authority will also take into consideration the fact that the petitioner is a lady employee, and therefore necessary considerations in respect of such lady employees shall be duly taken into account before passing the order by the appropriate authority. 10. Accordingly, the petitioner will file her representation within a period of 2 (two) weeks from today, along with a certified copy of this order before the Respondent No. 4, namely the General Manager. The petitioner is also permitted to file her representation through email, if so required. Thereafter, the respondent authorities will consider the matter in its entirety, including the transfer and posting policy and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order. 11. Needless to say, any such order that may be passed by the respondent authorities, copies thereof shall be served upon the petitioner. Before such an order is passed, the petitioner may be given right of personal hearing, if she so desires. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above. 13. The interim order passed earlier will continue till the matter is disposed of by the respondent authorities or till 31.07.2026. JUDGE Page No.# 8/8 Comparing Assistant