HC junks petition challenging transfer order of MSPCL officer
Source: Chronicle News Service

Imphal, May 16 2025: The High Court of Manipur has dismissed a writ petition filed by an officer of the Manipur State Power Company Limited (MSPCL), challenging his transfer order issued in March this year.

The court of justice Ahanthem Bimol Singh held that the petition lacked merit and refused to interfere, noting that transfer is a condition of service and not a vested right of the employee.

The order was passed in connection with WP(C) No 258 cf 2025 hied by the petitioner, who challenged the transfer order dated March 27, 2025, transferring him from the post of Deputy General Manager, Sub-Station Division II, MSPCL.

The petitioner alleged that the transfer was issued with mala fide intention and ulterior motive, and that it violated the state government's transfer policy issued on May 12, 2022 .

In its observation, the court noted that the allegations of mala fide were specifically and elaborately denied by the respondents in their counter-affidavit.

Since the allegations raised disputed questions of fact and lacked supporting evidence, the court held that it could not accept them as absolute truth.

Furthermore, the court pointed out that even if those allegations were accepted at face value, they did not result in any civil consequences nor did they infringe on any legal rights of the petitioner.

Therefore, it declined to interfere with the transfer on that ground.

The petitioner also contended that the transfer violated the state's transfer policy, which mandates that officers should normally not be transferred before completing 18 months in post, and that transfers should typically occur in April or May unless there are compelling reasons.

The court rejected this argument, pointing out that the petitioner had already served more than two and a half years at the present post since his appointment order dated July 20, 2022.In contrast, the private respondent No 3, Gurumayum Tapankumar Sharma, who was posted in place of the petitioner, had only recently been promoted to the rank of Deputy General Manager on October 30, 2024, and the impugned order was his first transfer after promotion.

The court held that there was no violation of the transfer policy and termed the petitioner's claim "devoid of merit".

The court reiterated the well-established legal position that a government employee holding a transferable post has no right to remain at a station of choice.

It emphasised that transfer is not only an incident of service but also a condition of service, and courts should refrain from interfering unless a transfer order is proved to be mala fide or violates statutory rules, neither of which applied in this case.

The court also stated that the rulings of certain case cited by the petitioner did not support his claims and, in fact, went against his arguments.

As for the private respondent's separate representation seeking reassignment to a different division, the court said it was for the competent authorities to consider and decide.

The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, and the interim order previously granted was vacated.

In two other cases of similar circumstances, the High Court of Manipur on Friday directed the state government to cancel the termination orders of two contractual directors before the expiry of their tenure, citing violation of the principles of natural justice in both cases.

Justice Ahanthem Bimol Singh passed the orders in WP(C) No 402 of 2025 filed by Hijam Shantikumar Singh and WP(C) No 403 of 2025 filed by Ng Subhachandra Singh.

In both petitions, the primary grievance was that the authorities terminated their services without issuing a show cause notice or providing any opportunity to be heard.

In response, advocate general Lenin Hijam submitted that under paragraph 47(a) and (b) of the Memorandum of Association of MSPDCL and MSPCL respectively, the government holds absolute discretionary power to appoint or remove directors at any time.

However, he informed the court that the authorities were ready to cancel the impugned orders while reserving the liberty to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law.

Following submissions from both parties, the court directed that the impugned orders be cancelled on or before May 19, 2025, and disposed of both petitions accordingly.

Comment