w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Lashmon Pyngrope v/s North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited & Others

    WP(C) No. 414 of 2022
    Decided On, 11 October 2022
    At, High Court of Meghalaya
    For the Petitioner: H.L. Shangreiso, Sr. Advocate, A. Kharshiing, Advocate. For the Respondents: V.K. Jindal, Sr. Advocate, V. Kumar, Advocate.

Judgment Text
Judgment & Order (Oral):

1. The writ petitioner is before this Court assailing the transfer order dated 16.09.2022, by which he has been transferred on promotion to Arunachal Pradesh as Sr. Executive Supervisor.

2. The main grievance of the writ petitioner is that he is left with less than 2 years in service, and as per the Transfer Policy of the respondent Corporation at clause 11.7 it provides that, employees due for superannuation within a period of 2(two) years shall normally be considered for posting at locations of their choice or nearest to their hometown. In this regard, it is noted that the writ petitioner has also preferred a representation as provided in the Policy itself for reconsideration of his transfer. Further, it is noted that the said representation is still pending consideration, but in the meantime a release order dated 29.09.2022 has since been issued.

3. Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. A. Kharshiing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Corporation is to abide by the Transfer Policy, inasmuch as, though the transfer may be a transfer on promotion, the same is liable to be reconsidered and interfered with by this Court.

4. Mr. V.K. Jindal, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. V. Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation has drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant provision of the Transfer Policy, especially clause 7, which deals with cases relating to transfer on promotion and submits that if the petitioner is willing to forego the promotion and by operation of the Rule itself, he shall not be transferred to another location for a period of 1(one) year.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. It is seen that the matter is not a case of transfer on exigency but a transfer on promotion of the writ petitioner to a higher post, and the petitioner from the materials on record is not willing to forego his promotion. Further, it is also noted that the representation which has been preferred, as per the communication dated 28.09.2022 issued by the competent authority has not yet been considered.

7. In this backdrop considering the Transfer Policy and as the matter concerns the transfer on promotion, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the transfer and the release orders which are impugned herein. However, it is directed that the respondent Corporation shall dispose of the representation of the petitioner within a period of 2(two) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified c

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
opy of this order. Further, considering the personal situation of the petitioner, it is expected that the respondent Corporation will look at the representation sympathetically. 8. With the above noted directions, this writ petition stands closed and is accordingly disposed of.