Dipjyoti Adhikari vs Zamaluddin Ahmed And 4 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 4669 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Dipjyoti Adhikari vs Zamaluddin Ahmed And 4 Ors on 19 August, 2025

                                                                    Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010191872024




                                                             undefined



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

                            Case No. : WA/323/2024

         DIPJYOTI ADHIKARI
         S/O. NARAYAN ADHIKARI,R/O. VILL. HABIGAON, P/S. MAZBAT, DIST.-
         UDALGURI, ASSAM, PIN-784507



         VERSUS

         ZAMALUDDIN AHMED AND 4 ORS
         S/O. LATE ABDUL MANNAM SIDDIQUE, R/O. VILL. KENDUGURI, P/O.
         HERAPATI, P/S. NAGAON SADAR, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782002

         2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
          REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
          EXCISE DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-781006.

         3:THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
         ASSAM HOSEFED COMPLEX
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-781006

         4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE
          DHEKIAJULI CIRCLE
         ASSAM

         5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE
          SADIYA
         TINSUKIA
         ASSA
                                                                      Page No.# 2/4

For petitioner/applicant(s) :   Mr. B. D. Das, Sr. Advocate
                                Mr. J. Lotha, Advocate

For respondent(s)           :   Mr. I. H. Saikia, Advocate

Mr. P. N. Goswami, Addl. AG, Assam

- BEFORE -

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON'BLE MRs. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 19.08.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

A piquant situation appears to have arisen on account of interference by the learned Single Judge in a general order of transfer of approximately 39 Assistant Excise Inspectors.

One Zamaluddin Ahmed/respondent No. 1 herein, who had earlier been posted at Chaparmukh and had been transferred to Dhekiajuli on 12.02.2024, stood transferred to Sadia vide transfer order dated 06.06.2024. The appellant herein was transferred to Dhekiajuli in place of Zamaluddin Ahmed. Both Zamaluddin Ahmed and the appellant/Dipjyoti Adhikari were not happy with the transfer because they were transferred many times in a short span of time. It further appears from the records of this appeal that three writ petitions were filed, one by Zamaluddin Ahmed, i.e the respondent herein, and two others, namely, Sushanta Debnathand Anish Kalam.

The learned Single Judge dealt with all the writ petitions and passed a composite judgment cancelling/annulling the transfer orders of the employees.

However, the challenge to such order was made only by the appellant herein, as a result of which the appellant continues to remain at Dhekiajuli because of the interim stay over the judgment passed by the learned Single Page No.# 3/4

Judge. Rest others were transferred back to the places from where they had been transferred in the last transaction.

On going through the impugned judgment, we find that the learned Single Judge, though took note of the fact that transfer is only an exigency of service and normally the Courts are loath to interfere with such exercise of powers which are exclusively within the domain of the employer, yet interfered with the orders of transfers with respect to the writ petitioners on the ground of such transfers being in quick succession and for number of times.

Records reveal that few of the transfers were effected on the directions of the Election Commission of India and, later, in the exigencies of administration. In fact, what is revealed from the records of these cases is that there were certain changes in the rate of Ad Velorem levy on liquor, leading to a surge of inflow of liquor from the neighbouring states. The Government of the day wanted to place the "right officials" at the "right place" and, in that effort, 39 officers, including the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge, also stood transferred.

We are of the view that in such a situation, merely on account of there being multiple transfers in a short span of time, there ought not to have been any interference. Nonetheless, as on date, the judgment impugned has been implemented and the order has taken its effect because of no challenge offered by any of the respondents in the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge, leaving the issue open only with respect to the appellant and the respondent No. 1 herein.

The principle of law enunciated by the learned Single Judge is not required to be stoked in any manner and keeping that principle in mind, as also taking Page No.# 4/4

into account the fact that the appellant has remained at his place of posting at Dhekiajuli and the respondent No. 1 at Sadia for a long time, we do not wish to upturn the apple cart at this stage.

Thus, differing with the decision of the learned Single Judge, we deem it appropriate to set aside the judgment with respect to the appellant and the respondent No. 1, who are to remain at their current places of posting: the appellant at Dhekiajuli and the respondent No. 1 at Sadia.

The appeal stands disposed of.

We clarify that this is subject to any fresh decision taken by the Government/concerned department with respect to the appellant and the respondent No. 1.

                                       JUDGE                    CHIEF JUSTICE




Comparing Assistant