##PAGE1##

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010036592026

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : WA/111/2026

THE DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY

DEPARTMENT

ASSAM, CHENIKUTHI, GUWAHATI-781003.

VERSUS

MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN AND ANR

SON OF LATE MAJIBAR RAHMAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- ULUBARI, P.O-

JUNGLEPARA, DIST- DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN-784116.

2:MOUSHUMI KALITA

D/O SRI THAGIRAM KALITA

R/O VILL. BEZPARA

MOUZA MILONPARA

P.O. AND P.S. MANGALDOI

DIST. DARRANG

ASSAM

PIN 78411

For the appellant : Mr. J.K. Goswami,

S.C., Animal Husbandry and

Veterinary Department

For the respondents : Mr. M. Dutta, Sr. Advocate

Assisted by Mr. L. Deka, Advocate

Page No.# 2/3

– B E F O R E –

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

13-05-2026

(Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.)

We have heard Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned Advocate for the

appellant/Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department and Mr. M.

Dutta, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents.

This case concerns a mutual transfer dispute between two

Junior Assistants/respondents working in the Animal Husbandry and

the Veterinary Department, Government of Assam.

It appears that both the respondents were appointed on

01.06.2023. On the strength of the Office Memorandum dated 01.01.2025

of the Government of Assam, which permits mutual transfer for Grade- III

and Grade-IV employee within the same department and directorate

but subject to the conditions that they have the same grade pay, similar

nature of posts/qualifications and they being governed by the same

service rules, the respondents applied for mutual transfer which was

approved by the department and necessary consequential order was

passed on 07.06.2025.

Later, the department sought to recall such order on the ground

that the respondents are governed by two different rules, namely, Assam

Directorate Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1973 and the Assam

District Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1967 and cancelled the

transfer order on 12.07.2025.

Page No.# 3/3

Challenging the afore-noted cancellation order, the respondents

herein approached this Court vide WP(C) 4350/2025.

The learned Single Judge rejected such contention of the

department and held that both the respondents are governed by the

1973 Rules and they are qualified for seeking mutual transfer because of

they getting same grade pay and holding similar nature of posts, apart

from both of them being governed by 1973 Rules.

There is nothing in the memo of appeal to indicate that the

respondents are governed by two different Rules.

The learned Advocate for the appellant/Animal Husbandry and

Veterinary Department seeks some time to have clarity in the matter. He

further submits that he be permitted to file necessary clarificatory

affidavit before questioning the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

Let such an affidavit be filed by the next date with clear averments

that the respondents are governed presently by two different service

rules.

Re-notify on 12.06.2026.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

Comparing Assistant