Disposed

Rigo Bam v. The State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Sept 2025WP(C)/420/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court permitted a government employee to file a representation challenging a mid-year transfer order, directing authorities to hear the grievance within three working days and dispose of it within fifteen days with a speaking order, holding suspension of the order, pending the decision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file representation; impugned order stayed; direction to respondents to dispose of representation within 15 days with speaking order.

Rigo Bam Vs The State of Ap and 4 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2025)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC040014882025

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/420/2025

¶5

Rigo Bam

¶6

Son of Late Tori Bam, presently serving as Section Officer, Group B (Gazetted), PWD Establishment Branch, Civil Secretariat, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of AP and 4 Ors represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Civil Secretariat, Itanagar. 2:The Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Secretariat Administration Department Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat Itanagar.

¶9

3:The Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : General Administration Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat Itanagar.

¶10

4:The Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Public Works Department Itanagar Govt of Arunachal Pradesh.

¶11

5:Ringhu Mangha Age: 0

¶12

Page No.# 2/5

¶13

Occupation : Section Officer Group B (Gazetted) UD and Housing Branch Civil Secretariat Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : Rintu Saikia, Mindo Taso,Idak Bam,Bomchi Taipodia,Limi Bam,Ligam Nochi

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP),

¶16

Page No.# 3/5

¶17

BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 02.09.2025

¶20

Heard Mr. R. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate for the State respondents.

¶21

2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 28.08.2025, whereby the petitioner who was posted at Public Works Department Establishment Branch in the Civil Secretariat, Itanagar, was transferred and posted at the Urban Development and Housing Branch. The person named at Sl. No.2, who was posted in Urban Development and Housing Branch, is posted in place of the writ petitioner.

¶22

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the order dated 03.02.2025, the petitioner was posted at the PWD Establishment Branch and the impugned order is issued mid-year within 7 (seven) months of his posting by the earlier order dated 03.02.2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the guidelines issued by the State on 02.06.1998, submits that no transfer should take place in the last 3 (three) months of the financial year and normally the posting should be for a period of 3 (three) years. These guidelines came to be subsequently amended by an order dated 19.12.2008, whereby the tenure of posting was modified to that of 2 (two) years instead of 3 (three) years, as earlier specified in the guidelines. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is no specific reason or complaint against the petitioner, requiring the petitioner to be transferred out mid-term. That apart, he has been debarred from filing a representation before the authorities, which is specifically mentioned in the impugned order dated 28.08.2025. Under

¶23

Page No.# 4/5

¶24

such circumstances, the petitioner has made a limited prayer before the Court to permit him to file a representation before the concerned authorities, and that the authorities should be directed to dispose of his representation within a fixed date.

¶25

4. Mr. Tapin, learned Senior Governmental Advocate for the State, on the other hand, submits that he does not have instructions as to the reasons leading to the transfer of the petitioner mid-term. He, therefore, submits that he be permitted to take the necessary instructions in the matter.

¶26

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, it is seen that the limited prayer of the writ petitioner is to permit him to file a representation before the competent authority ventilating his grievance against the transfer order dated 28.08.2025, whereby the petitioner was transferred from his present post to his new place of posting. However, as the impugned order dated 28.08.2025 itself specifically mentions that the officers are directed to join in their places of posting, and no further representation for cancellation of transfer/posting order is permitted, a direction has been sought for by the petitioner to that effect. There is a specific averment in the writ petition that the private respondent/reliever has not joined in his place of posting and the petitioner has also not handed over the charge as on date.

¶27

6. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that ventilating of grievance before the concerned authority is concomitant of the rules of natural justice. Any employee having any grievance must be permitted under law to approach the competent authority ventilating his or her place of posting. Restraining any employees from filing representation is contrary to good governance and proper administration.

¶28

Page No.# 5/5

¶29

7. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition can be disposed of by permitting the writ petitioner to file a representation as prayed for before the competent authority, namely the Secretary, General Administration (SA), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, within 3 (three) working days. If such a representation as prayed for is filed before the said office, the same shall be duly received, considered, and upon taking into account the grievances ventilated by the petitioner and other relevant materials, the same shall be disposed of with a speaking order. A copy of the said order shall also be served on the writ petitioner. It is ordered accordingly.

¶30

8. The representation, if filed within 3 (three) working days as directed, shall be disposed of with a speaking order within 15 (fifteen) days therefrom, and a copy of the speaking order be served on the writ petitioner. Till such order as directed by this Court is passed by the respondent authorities, the impugned order dated 28.08.2025, shall not be given effect to.

¶31

9. The writ petition accordingly, stands disposed of in terms of above.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Rigo Bam v. The State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rigo Bam v. The State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Kakoty Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Purna Sindhu Mudoi Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Purna Sindhu Mudoi Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Jomge Dulom Vs The State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Robin Padung Vs The State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Sangkung Jonah Vs The State of Ap and 2 Ors.