Authority: High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong

Order Date: 07 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Shri Pristerwell Ropmay, Assistant Manager (Finance) at NEEPCO, aged about 59, son of M. Laitstep.
  • Respondents: North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited (NEEPCO) and its senior officials – Managing Director, Board of Directors, Company Secretary, Director of Finance (Guwahati), Deputy General Manager (HR), Sr. Manager (Fin) Funds & E, Executive Director (Finance) – Shillong.
  • Writ Petitions: WP(C) No. 282 of 2026 and WP(C) No. 301 of 2026, both arising from the same cause of action, challenging a transfer order dated 11‑06‑2026 that moved the petitioner from NEEPCO Corporate Headquarters, Shillong, to the Corporate Accounts Wing at Guwahati.
  • Petitioner’s Claim: Relied on Clause 11.7 of NEEPCO Transfer Policy (dated 08‑05‑2017) which states that employees due for superannuation within two years shall normally be considered for posting at a location of their choice or nearest to their hometown. He submitted a representation on 11‑06‑2026 seeking retention at Shillong; the representation was rejected on 30‑06‑2026.
  • Procedural History: The Court, by order dated 24‑06‑2026, stayed the transfer pending disposal of the representation. The representation was disposed of on 30‑06‑2026, rejecting the petitioner's request.
  • Petitioner’s Arguments: The rejection violated Clause 11.7; the transfer would cause severe prejudice to him and his family after 29 years of service in Shillong. Cited precedents: Devapriya Choudhury Vs. Union of India, Subir Sircar Vs. NEEPCO, Home Secretary U.T. Chandigarh Vs. Darshjit Singh Grewal, B.S. Minhas Vs. Indian Statistical Institute.
  • Respondents’ Arguments: Transfer is based on operational necessity as Corporate Accounts functions are centralized in Guwahati and the petitioner is specially trained. Asserted that Clauses 11.7 and 17 are administrative guidelines, not enforceable statutory rules. Cited NEEPCO & Ors. Vs. Bidul Goswami (2022) and S.C. Saxena Vs. Union of India (2006) supporting non‑interference after representation considered.
  • Court’s Reasoning: Recognized that Clause 11.7 is a policy guideline but management retains prerogative under Clause 8.1 to transfer employees for organisational requirements. Noted that the representation was considered, and no mal‑afide intent was shown. Relied on binding precedent (NEEPCO & Ors. Vs. Bidul Goswami, para 15) stating the Court should refrain from interfering once the employer’s transfer order has been considered.

Final Outcome

  • The Court refrained from interfering with the impugned transfer order, finding no illegality or arbitrariness and no allegation of mal‑afide conduct.
  • Both writ petitions (WP(C) No. 282 of 2026 and WP(C) No. 301 of 2026) were closed and disposed of.
  • The Court directed that, should the petitioner wish to make a fresh representation for re‑transfer, it shall be given due consideration.

Topics: Transfer Policy, Public Sector Employment, Judicial Review