Dammo Riba Vs The State of Ap and 2 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC040003392026

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/93/2026

¶5

Dammo Riba

¶6

Son of Late Modam Riba, permanent resident of Village Daring, PO and PS Daring, Leparada District, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of AP and 2 Ors represented by the Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry, Veterinary and Dairy Development, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar 791111. 2:The Director Age: 0 Occupation : Animal Husbandry Veterinary and Dairy Development Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Nirjuli. 3:Tadar Tatik I/C Age: 0 Occupation : District Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Officer Anini Dibang Valley District

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : Khoda Tama, Radhe Sumpa,Lod Chilyang,Tasso Dodung,Khoda Yubey,Jambey Tsering,T Lampung,Hinti Jeram

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP),

¶11

Page No.# 2/4

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 12.03.2026

¶15

Heard Mr. K. Tama, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondents.

¶16

2. Having regard to the nature of grievance projected by the petitioner, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at this stage.

¶17

3. By this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for setting aside the order of transfer dated 05.02.2026 (Annexure-2) insofar as he is concerned, on the ground that the same has not been issued in public interest. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State Government has a transfer policy which provides that a government servant shall ordinarily have a normal tenure of two years at a particular place of posting. The same has been reiterated from time to time through various circulars. However, in clear violation of the said instructions on transfer, the impugned transfer order has been issued, transferring the petitioner from Basar to Anini.

¶18

4. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has come to know that the transfer has been effected on account of a complaint submitted by his spouse. He submits that the transfer order issued pursuant to such a complaint submitted by his spouse cannot be said to be a transfer made in public interest. Therefore, the order of transfer, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, should be set aside.

¶19

5. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner had submitted a

¶20

Page No.# 3/4

¶21

representation before the Director of Animal Husbandry, Veterinary and Dairy Development Department on 16.02.2026, but as the same has not been considered, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶22

6. Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that the reliance placed by the petitioner is with regard to the transfer policy, which, however, may not be enforceable and cannot be claimed by the petitioner as a matter of right. He also submits that the order of transfer has been issued by the Secretary (Animal Husbandry, Veterinary & Dairy Development), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, and therefore, the petitioner ought to have approached the said authority instead of the Director, as the Secretary is the competent authority.

¶23

7. Insofar as the interim prayer made by the petitioner is concerned, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that it is not known as to whether the transfer has been effected as on date or not, although it is the claim of the petitioner that he is still in station at Basar.

¶24

8. Considering the above projections and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the rival parties, instead of keeping the matter pending before this Court, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should submit a concise representation before the Secretary (Animal Husbandry, Veterinary & Diary Development), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, within a period of 3 (three) days from today. Upon receipt of such representation, the said authority shall consider and dispose of the same by way of a speaking order within 15 (fifteen) days from receipt of the same.

¶25

Page No.# 4/4

¶26

9. It is directed accordingly.

¶27

10. It is also provided herein that till the disposal of the representation to be submitted by the petitioner by the Secretary of the Department concerned, the status quo as on today shall be maintained.

¶28

11. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Dammo Riba v. The State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dammo Riba v. The State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Gloria Enterprises Vs The State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Ms Phekhu Wangsu Vs The State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Ms Mary Megu and Anr. Vs The State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Boken Kino Vs The State of Ap and 3 Ors.

All Itanagar Tata Mobile and Carriage Tempo Welfare Association Vs The State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Sh. Ngurdailova and 2 Ors. Vs The State of Mizoram and 4 Ors.