Nikhil Gogoi Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010124802025

¶3

undefined

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/3237/2025

¶6

NIKHIL GOGOI

¶7

SON OF LATE DAPESWAR GOGOI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BANMUK DHUPABORIA, P.O. PANBECHA, P.S. SIVASAGAR SADAR, DISTSIVASAGAR, ASSAM, PIN-785640

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110003

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE BLOCK 13 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003

¶11

3:THE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL (ESTT.) CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE (HQ) BLOCK 13 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003

¶12

4:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CISF GROUP (HEAD QUARTER) BEHARBARI LALMATI GUWAHATI-781040

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

5:THE COMMANDANT CISF OIL DULIAJAN UNIT DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-78660

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS M DAS, MS. M K BROWN

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. B CHAKRAVARTY (C.G.C),MR. B CHAKRAVARTY

¶17

BEFORE

¶18

HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 03.06.2026

¶21

Heard Ms. M.K. Brown, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Chakravarty, learned CGC.

¶22

By this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the transfer order dated 04.04.2025 by which the petitioner was transferred to NCR Delhi from Duliajan. The petitioner has also prayed for setting aside the order dated 27.05.2025 by which the appeal for stay of transfer order was rejected. The petitioner has also challenged the subsequent order passed by the respondents to effectuate the posting of the petitioner to NCR Delhi. It is also prayed that the petitioner being in his place of posting i.e. in Duliajan for less than 3 years, should be posted in the said place.

¶23

The case of the petitioner is that he was working as Assistant Sub Inspector in the IOCL, Duliajan, Moran Sector and while he was working in the said capacity, a transfer order was made on 04.04.2025 transferring the petitioner to NCR Delhi. The petitioner states that he had not completed his three years of

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

service in his last place of posting and as such he should not have been transferred to a sector outside the State of Assam.

¶26

The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. M.K. Brown submits that the petitioner being aggrieved with the said transfer order had filed the instant application before this Court challenging the said transfer. The said transfer order was challenged on the ground of medical emergency of his wife and also for violation of the rules which prescribed minimum of 3 years service at a particular station.

¶27

Mr. B. Chakravarty, learned CGC has however submitted that as per Rules after 16 years of service, an employee can request for his transfer to his home sector and that the petitioner will complete his 16 years of service in outside sector within a few days from today. He further submits that the petitioner has served in the North Eastern Region for a period of 21 years out of his 36 years of service. He also submits that Delhi is a place of posting which the petitioner had opted.

¶28

It is noticed that petitioner has served for 36 years in his service tenure and by now he is entitled to be posted in his home sector as provided by the guidelines. It is noticed that the petitioner would be entering his 4th tenure being 58 years of age as of now, which shows that he has about two years of service left in his service carrier falling short of few months. As such , it is seen that the petitioner would be entering into his 4th tenure as per the guidelines dated 23.12.2024/Circular No. 07/2024. The said guidelines provides that a person superannuating within 2 years will be asked to submit three choices of locations including the home sector in order of preference and he or she can be posted to a location of his choice based on his merit. It is provided in guideline no. 2.1 (E)(ii) that if the remaining service of an individual is more than two

¶29

Page No.# 4/4

¶30

years, he will be asked to submit any 10 choices of his locations including the home sector. It is therefore seen that the petitioner has a service of little more than two years and as such he can opt for his home sector during his final years of his service career. As such, it is directed that the petitioner should submit a representation before the authorities concerned i.e. Director General, CISF to consider his transfer from Delhi to his home sector as he has only 2 years and few months in his service career. The said authority will consider the said application.

¶31

In view of the facts narrated above and as per the policy decision the authorities should complete the process within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶32

The petitioner is directed to place the certified copy of this order at the earliest along with the representation.

¶33

Petition is disposed of.

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Nikhil Gogoi v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikhil Gogoi v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jamal Ali Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

All Assam Development Authority Employees Joint Council and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 27 Ors.

Chandan Ch Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Kularanjan Das Vs Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. and 5 Ors.

Bijoy Deka Vs the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

Aminul Hoque Laskar Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.