Meghalaya High Court
S/O (L) M. Laitstep :::Writ vs North Eastern Electric Power … on 7 July, 2026
Author: H. S. Thangkhiew
Bench: H. S. Thangkhiew
Serial No. 03 & 05
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 301 of 2026 with
WP(C) No. 282 of 2026 Date of Decision: 07.07.2026
WP(C) No. 301 of 2026
Shri. Pristerwell Ropmay
Aged about 59 years
S/o (L) M. Laitstep :::Writ Petitioner
-Vs-
1.North Eastern Electric Power Corporation
Limited (NEEPCO), represented by its
Managing Director
2.Board of Directors, North Eastern Electric
Power Corporation (NEEPCO), Shillong
3.Company Secretary, North Eastern Electric
Power Corporation (NEEPCO), Shillong
4.Director of Finance, North Eastern Electric
Power Corporation Ltd. (NEEPCO), Guwahati
5.Deputy General Manager (HR) North Eastern
Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (NEEPCO)
6.Sr. Manager (Fin) Funds & E
NEEPCO, Shillong
7.Executive Director (Finance)
NEEPCO, Shillong :::Respondents
1
WP(C) No. 282 of 2026
Shri. Pristerwell Ropmay
Aged about 59 years
S/o (L) M. Laitstep :::Writ Petitioner
-Vs-
1.North Eastern Electric Power Corporation
Limited (NEEPCO), represented by its
Managing Director
2.Director of Finance, North Eastern Electric
Power Corporation Ltd. (NEEPCO), Guwahati
3.Deputy General Manager (HR) North Eastern
Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (NEEPCO) :::Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. W. Khongsni, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. V.K. Jindal, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. S. Goenka, Adv.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
2
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. These two writ petitions stemming from one cause of action are
being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The facts briefly
put are that the writ petitioner serving as an Assistant Manager (Finance) in
the North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited (NEEPCO), has put
a challenge to the transfer order dated 11.06.2026, whereby he has been
transferred from NEEPCO Corporate Headquarters, Shillong, to the
Corporate Accounts Wing at Guwahati, which he contends is against the
NEEPCO’s Transfer Policy dated 08.05.2017. In the first writ petition i.e.
WP(C) No. 282 of 2026, reference has been made to Clause 11.7 of the
Transfer Policy which provides that employees due for superannuation
within 2(two) years shall normally be considered for posting at a location
of their choice, or nearest to their hometown. The petitioner being within
the said zone as he is due to retire within 2(two) years, had submitted a
representation seeking reconsideration of the transfer order in the light of
the aforementioned clause, and on the same not being addressed, had
approached this Court, which by order dated 24.06.2026, directed that till
the representation of the petitioner was not disposed of, the impugned
transfer would not be given effect to.
3
2. The representation dated 11.06.2026, was then disposed of by the
respondents vide order dated 30.06.2026, whereby the request of the
petitioner for retention at Shillong, was not accepted. Being aggrieved
thereby the petitioner preferred the second writ petition namely WP(C) No.
301 of 2026, for setting aside and quashing of the impugned release order
dated 24.06.2026, and order dated 30.06.2026.
3. Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. W.
Khongsni, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
rejection of the petitioner’s representation for retention of his services in
Shillong, is in violation of Clause 11.7 of the Transfer Policy of NEEPCO,
inasmuch as, the petitioner is due to retire within 2(two) years. It is further
submitted that the order disposing of his representation stating
organizational requirement as the reason for transfer is misplaced and
arbitrary, as the Corporate Headquarters of NEEPCO is Shillong, where for
29(twenty-nine) long years he has been allowed to serve in, and now at the
fag end of his service, being asked to relocate would cause severe prejudice
to him and his family. The learned Senior counsel with regard to the
transfer policy has contended that the same having been laid down by the
Respondent NEEPCO itself, it is incumbent upon them to adhere to the
same. In this context, reliance has been placed in the judgment of this
Court, in the cases of Shri. Devapriya Choudhury Vs. The Union of India
4
& 4 Ors. and Shri. Subir Sircar Vs. The North Eastern Electric Power
Corporation Ltd. & 3 Ors. reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Megh 233,
where he 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. Reliance has also been placed
in the cases of Home Secretary U.T. Chandigarh Vs. Darshjit Singh
Grewal (1993) 4 SCC 25 and B.S. Minhas Vs. Indian Statistical Institute
& Ors. (1983) 4 SCC 582, in furtherance of his submissions on the binding
nature of bye-laws and policy guidelines. He therefore submits that the
rejection of his representation being without any basis and the transfer
order being arbitrary, the same be set aside and the petitioner allowed to
serve his remaining 14(fourteen) months of service at the Corporate
Headquarters.
4. Mr. V.K. Jindal, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Goenka,
learned counsel for the respondents in reply, has submitted that the transfer
of the petitioner is purely on the basis of operational necessity, as the
function relating to Corporate Accounts are centralized and carried out
from the Guwahati office, for which the petitioner has been specifically
trained to deal with the newly introduced centralized system. He further
submits that the transfer order is in public interest and for administrative
reasons, and that in the instant case, there is no allegation of any malafide
5
on the part of the respondents. It is also asserted that Clause 11.7 and 17 of
the NEEPCO Transfer Policy are not mandatory statutory rules, but are in
the nature of administrative instructions and guidelines which do not confer
any enforceable right. He then submits that as per the order of this Court
dated 24.06.2026, the representation dated 16.06.2026, has been disposed
of by a speaking order, which has regretted the request of the petitioner. In
support of his contentions, the learned Senior counsel has cited the case of
North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (NEEPCO) & Ors. Vs.
Bidul Goswami reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Megh 592, wherein he
submits, it has been clearly laid down that once the employees’
representation against the order of transfer having been considered, the
Court should refrain from interfering in the matter. The learned Senior
counsel has also relied upon the case of S.C. Saxena Vs. Union of India &
Ors. reported in (2006) 9 SCC 583, to buttress his arguments of the duty of
a Government Servant to comply with transfer orders. He then concludes
his submissions by praying that the writ petition be not entertained.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, and in the limited
scope of interference with transfer orders, which is an incidence of service,
this Court is only to examine as to whether the transfer order suffers from
any illegality or arbitrariness, that would warrant any interference. Heavy
6
reliance has been placed by the petitioner on Paragraph – 11.7 of the
Transfer Policy, which is reproduced herein below:
“11.7. Employees due for superannuation within a period of
2(two) years shall be normally be considered for posting at
locations of their choice or nearest to their hometown.”
6. In the instant case the fact that the petitioner would be
superannuating within a period of 2(two) years is undisputed. As such, by
the application of the above quoted clause, due consideration was to be
given as to his final place of posting, which however, inspite of the
representation had been rejected. A perusal of the impugned rejection order
dated 30.06.2026, would however reveal that the request of the petitioner
had been duly considered from the angle of medical needs and also the fact
that apart from having been based in Shillong for 29(twenty-nine) years,
the transfer had been ordered, in view of the organizational requirements of
the Corporate Accounts Wing.
7. A further aspect that is noticed is that by Paragraph – 8.1 of the
Transfer Policy itself, it is the prerogative of the management that
notwithstanding any provisions contained in the policy, the management
reserved a right to transfer or retain any employee at any place irrespective
of his/her tenure at a particular location in order to meet the organisation
requirements. Apart from this, the judgment of the Division Bench of this
7
Court in the case of North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd.
(NEEPCO) & Ors. Vs. Bidul Goswami (supra), which is binding at Para –
15, has held as follows:
“15. Once so much appears to the Court that it was in the
usual course that an employee was sought to be transferred
by the public employer and the employee’s representation
against the order of transfer had been considered, the Court
should refrain from interfering in the matter. There is no
doubt that the writ petitioner in the present case has abused
the process to obtain undeserving orders of status quo to stall
his transfer and the time of joining his transferred place of
posting.”
8. With regard to the nature of the transfer guidelines, this Court in the
case of Shri. Devapriya Choudhury Vs. The Union of India & 4 Ors.
(supra), has dealt with the same and at Para – 20, and had held as follows:
“20. Admittedly, NEEPCO is a public sector undertaking and
has framed the Transfer Policy to regulate the transfer and
posting of employees of NEEPCO. The Policy framed by
NEEPCO cannot be said to have the status of statutory rules
framed under proviso to Article 309. However, once
NEEPCO has laid down well thought out norms and policy,
there must be valid reasons to deviate therefrom. It is true
that these guidelines do not have the force of statutory Rules,
and as such they do not confer any right on the employee, but
it is also equally true that since NEEPCO has laid down
norms and policy for transfer and policy, there must be valid
and justifiable reasons for NEEPCO to deviate from the same
in any particular case of transfer and posting. The norms and
policy which have been framed by NEEPCO have obviously
been framed for the purpose that they be followed and8
naturally have not been framed for the purpose that they be
violated. As such though these guidelines do not confer a
right on the employee, but definitely these Guidelines cast an
obligation on NEEPCO to follow these norms and policy and
justify with valid reasons why the set norms and policy of
transfer cannot be followed in the case of a particular
employee.”
9. As such therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the Corporate
Headquarters of NEEPCO is located in Shillong, and the petitioner in the
exigency of service has been seen fit to be retained for 29(twenty-nine)
long years at Shillong itself by the respondents, and at the fag end of his
service is now sought to be transferred, in view of the foregoing
discussions, this Court refrains from interfering with the impugned transfer
order, also taking into account that there is no allegation of malafides.
10. It is however provided that in the event the writ petitioner prefers a
representation for re-transfer, the same shall be given due consideration.
11. Accordingly, in these circumstances, these writ petitions are closed
and disposed of.
Judge
Meghalaya
07.07.2026
“D.Thabah-PS”
Signature Not Verified 9
Digitally signed by DARIHUN
THABAH
Date: 2026.07.07 16:36:54 IST
