Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010136962026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3545/2026 THANGMINLEN THANGEO S/O LALCHUNGNUNG THANGEO R/O IPF/PCSC-R/COY (MLG) P.O JALUKBURI P/S MALIGAON DIST KAMRUP (M), ASSAM PIN 781011 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAIL BHAVAN RAISINA ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN-110001 2:THE DIG (ESTABLISHMENT) RAILWAY BOARD RAIL BHAVAN RAISINA ROAD NEW DELHI PIN-110001 3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE RAIL BHAVAN RAISINA ROAD NEW DELHI PIN-110001 4:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI 781011 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR I RAFIQUE, CHONBEN Z YANTHAN,N CHAKRABORTY,MS A AFREEN,MRS S A CHOUDHURY Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 02.07.2026 Heard Mr. I Rafique, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner. Also heard Ms. P Lhamu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of B. Kaushik, learned C.G.C. for all the respondents. 2. The petitioner by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India is aggrieved by Force Order No.17/2026 dated 11.06.2026 issued by the Principal Chief Security Commissioner, NF Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati/respondent No.4 in the Writ Petition (hereinafter referred to as PCSC), whereby the petitioner has been transferred to the Katihar Division. It may be mentioned herein that the petitioner is serving in the Railway Protection Force and he is posted at Zonal Headquarter, PCSC (Reserve Copy), Maligaon. By the impugned transfer order dated 11.06.2026, he was transferred as already mentioned hereinabove. 3. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the said transfer is violation of Directive No.58 (Revised) issued by the RPF Authorities. A copy of the said Directive is annexed with the Writ Petition as Annexure—I. Mr. I Rafique, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to Clause XVII of Directive No.58 (Revised), which reads as follows : “(xviii) The process of annual transfers : All annual periodical transfers shall ideally be processed and completed on or before 31st March of every calendar year so as the Officers & Staff so affected could get sufficient time to plan for settling of their families and admissions of their wards, as is the case may be. However, on account of administrative exigencies, Page No.# 3/4 DG/RPF may extend the deadline by a maximum period of two months.” 4. It is submitted that by issuing the transfer order in June 2026, the transferring authority has violated Clause XVII of Directive No.58 (Revised) and the petitioner seeks interference of the same by this Court. 5. It is submitted that vide order dated 24.06.2026 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP (C) No.3189/2026 Laishram Ramananda Singh & Ors. Vs. The Union of India and 3 Ors., this Court in the attending circumstances, directed the authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner in that case in terms of the guidelines and till disposal of the representation, it was directed, the movement orders shall not be given effect to. It was submitted that similar directions may be passed in the instant case. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the respondents has drawn attention to the representation dated 13.06.2026 submitted by the petitioner addressed to the PCSC, North East Frontier Railway ventilating his grievances and the same was transmitted to the respondent No.4 vide Communication dated 13.06.2026. The learned counsel further takes the Court to the order dated 23.06.2026 passed thereafter directing the petitioner to report to his new place of posting at Katihar Division. In the context of his place of posting, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the representation has already been processed and the movement order has already been issued to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the representation was addressed to the PCSC, North East Frontier Railway and the movement order was issued by the Railway Inspector, Protection Force, therefore, his representation cannot be said to be processed. Nevertheless, the petitioner is ready to submit a fresh representation before the respondent No.4. Page No.# 4/4 7. I have already mentioned hereinabove that vide order dated 24.06.2026 passed in WP (C) No.3189/2026 a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in similar circumstances directed the authorities to consider the representations of the petitioners in that case and also dispose of the representations as per the relevant guidelines governing the transfer and posting of Railway Protection Force. 8. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to file a fresh representation before the Principal Chief Security Commissioner, NF Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati /respondent No.4 ventilating his grievances within a period of 5 (five) days from today. Upon receipt of the said representation, it will be disposed of by the authorities concerned within a period of 7 (seven) days from the date of receipt of the representation to be filed by the petitioner by passing a speaking order. 9. Till the representation is disposed of, the movement order shall not be given effect to. 10. It is needless to say that the fresh representation of the petitioner shall be considered with regard to the difficulties projected by him and also in terms of the relevant Clause XVII of Directive No.58 (Revised). 11. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant