Meghalaya High Court
R/O Pynthorbah vs Shillong-793003 on 8 July, 2026
Author: H.S. Thangkhiew
Bench: H.S. Thangkhiew
2026:MLHC:689
Serial No. 03
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 295 of 2026
Date of Decision :08.07.2026
Dr. Bishnu Ram Das, aged about 59 years,
S/o (L) Padma Ram Das, working as HOD,
Medical & Health Services, NEEPCO LTD, Shillong-793003.
R/o Pynthorbah, Shillong-793001
.... Petitioner
Versus
1.North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited (NEEPCO LTD)
Through its Chairman and Managing Director,
Brookland Compound, Lower New Colony,
Shillong-793003.
2.CHRO, North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited (NEEPCO)
Through its Chairman and Managing Director,
Brookland Compound, Lower New Colony,
Shillong-793003.
3.Dy. General Manager (HR)
North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited (NEEPCO)
Through its Chairman and Managing Director,
Brookland Compound, Lower New Colony,
Shillong-793003
.... Respondent(s)
Page 1 of 6
2026:MLHC:689
____________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.S. Thangkhiew, Judge.
Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. S.K. Nongrum, Adv. with
Mr. M. Prasad, Adv.
Ms. S.K.H. Nongrum, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. V.K. Jindal, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. S. Geonka, Adv.
____________________________________________________________
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner who is serving as HOD, Medical and Health
Services in NEEPCO, is before this Court assailing the transfer order dated
22.06.2026, issued by the respondent corporation. The challenge is on the
ground that the petitioner who is due to superannuate within 9 months, is
suffering from Type-II diabetes which requires insulin injection and also has
Hypertension.
2. Ms. S.K. Nongrum, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that by the impugned order, the petitioner has been directed to look after the
Page 2 of 6
2026:MLHC:689
medical and health services at a remote location in Arunachal Pradesh i.e.
Tato/Heo/Naying/HEP and to coordinate with the District Medical
Department and Defence Medical authorities for a period of 3 months. The
learned counsel contends that the impugned transfer order, is violative of
clause 11.7 of the Transfer Policy of NEEPCO, which mandates that
employees due for superannuation within 2 years shall normally be
considered for posting at locations of their choice or nearest to their home
town. It is further submitted that the petitioner has also submitted a
representation, but the same is yet to be answered by the respondents. In
support of her arguments, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the
cases Shri Devapriya Choudhury vs. Union of India & Ors. and Shri Subir
Sicar vs. The North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd., & Ors.
passed in Shri. Devapriya Choudhury Vs. The Union of India & 4 Ors. and
Shri. Subir Sircar Vs. The North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd.
& 3 Ors. reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Megh 233, where she submits it has
been held at Para – 20 thereof, that since NEEPCO has laid down norms and
policy for transfer, there must be valid and justifiable reasons to deviate from
the same. She therefore, prays that the impugned transfer order be set aside
and quashed and the petitioner be allowed to complete the remaining 9
months of his service at the Corporate Headquarters at Shillong.
Page 3 of 6
2026:MLHC:689
3. Mr. V.K. Jindal, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. S.
Geonka, learned counsel for the respondents in reply, has first submitted that
the impugned order dated 22.06.2026, is not a transfer order, inasmuch as,
the petitioner who is presently attached to the Corporate Office at Shillong
has only been temporarily detailed to Arunachal for only 3 months with
effect from 01.07.2026. The assignment he submits, is to look after the
works related to medical and health services at Tato/Heo/Naying/HEP, to
coordinate with the District Medical Department as well as the Defence
Department located nearby, to ensure better medical facilities at the project
location. He further submits that the petitioner continues to remain in the
posting strength of the Corporate Office at Shillong, and as such the writ
petition itself is totally misconceived and not maintainable.
4. It is further submitted that the petitioner holds a transferable
post, and as such he is liable to be transferred or detailed for any temporary
duty form one place to the other. The impugned order he asserts, has been
issued by the competent authority does not violate any mandatory statutory
rules, or executive instructions, and the temporary detail of duty for a period
of 3 months, is in view of extreme exigencies of medical service in the larger
interest of the employees of the corporation, posted at a remote place of the
project at Arunachal Pradesh. It is also contended that apart from the settled
Page 4 of 6
2026:MLHC:689
principles of law with regard to transfers, the Transfer Policy urged by the
petitioner, more particularly clause 11.7, does not confer any absolute
legally enforceable right and does not create an immunity from deployment
for a limited period of 3 months, especially due to medical exigencies.
5. The learned Senior counsel concludes by reiterating that the
impugned transfer order, is not a transfer at all and no prima facie case has
been made out and no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner, as it is only
for a limited period of 3 months to arrange the health services for the
employees serving at a remote location, who are not having adequate
medical facilities. He therefore, prays that the writ petition be not
entertained.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, and on an
examination of the impugned order, this Court notes that the same is only an
order of temporary detailment at Tato/Heo/Naying/HEP, and is not a transfer
order per se. This observation is made in view of the fact that this temporary
detail, is only for the purposes of ensuring better medical facilities at the
project site. On this premise therefore, apart from the fact that Courts are
slow to interfere with orders of transfer unless visited by mala fides or a form
of punishment, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner is due to retire in
only 9 months’ time, no interference is called for as the impugned order
Page 5 of 6
2026:MLHC:689
is well within the powers of the competent authority and made in the interest
of the Corporation.
7. The reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner on clause
11.7 of the Transfer Policy of NEEPCO and the judgement placed by her,
not being relevant for the purposes of this case, are not discussed or
elaborated upon.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition for the reasons aforestated, is not
entertained, and is disposed of.
JUDGE
Meghalaya
08.07.2026
“V. Lyndem- AR-PS”
Signature Not Verified Page 6 of 6
Digitally signed by
VALENTINO LYNDEM
Date: 2026.07.10 18:50:25 IST
