M. Pandian vs State of Arunachal Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 Supreme(Gau) 1650

KALYAN RAI SURANA
M. Pandian – Appellant
Versus
State of Arunachal Pradesh – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. R. Sonar, Mr. I. Tapa, Mr. H. Rinya, Ms. T. Devi, Mr. M. Basar and Mr. T. Ruku
For the Respondent: Ms. P. Pangu, Mr. R. Saika, Mr. B. Talukdar, Mr. K. Lollen, Mr. J. Das, Mr. L. Bam, Mr. L. Nochi, Mr. B. Taipodia and Ms. B. Riba

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P. Pangu, learned junior Government advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as Mr. R. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3.

2. With the consent of all sides, the matter is taken up for hearing at admission column.

3. By this writ petitioner under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order No. PWRS/E-26/94-95/Vol-III/Pt/5514-22, dated 18/20.12.2017, issued by the Commissioner (Power), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. By the said order, the private respondent No. 3, namely, Sri Gumila Singhpho was retained at Khonsa Civil Sub-Division as Assistant Engineer in place of the petitioner and the petitioner was transferred to the Office of the Superintending Engineer (C), Lohit Basin, Namsai.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer (C) and was posted at

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(Gau) 1650

KALYAN RAI SURANAM. Pandian – AppellantVersusState of Arunachal Pradesh – Respondent

Cases Referred (4)

KALYAN RAI SURANA
M. Pandian – Appellant
Versus
State of Arunachal Pradesh – Respondent