S.K. Homchaudhuri, J.:- The petitioner is an Upper Division Assistant in the establishment of Respondent No. 3. While working as Upper Division Assistant the petitioner was offered promotion to the higher post of Divisional Head Assistant anywhere in Assam by Respondent No. 2 by letter No. PHE/2 Estt/89/9586 dtd. 16.5.74. But the petitioner had to forego the chance of promotion to higher post as due to personal difficulties (old mother's illness) it was not possible on his part to accept the to ting in the post of Divisional Head Asstt. in the Hills District, consequently petitioner's juniors in the cadre of U. D. A. were promoted to the higher post. 2. On 15.6.76 the petitioner was however transferred to the post of U. D. A. in the office of the S. D. O (PHE), Kokrajhar vide order issued under letter No. PHE. 2/ESTT/69/10457/62 dtd 15.6.76. As the pet­itioner under compelling circumstances was unable to move cut of Gauhati he made a representation on 19. 6. 76, before the Respondent No. 2, praying for revoking the order of transfer. In the said rep­resentation amongst other the petitioner stated that due to his inability to work elsewhere, leaving 90 years' old ailing mother at Gau­hati, he had to forego promotions to higher post offered to him on earlier occasions. In the mean time, having fallen ill, petitioner had to go on leave on medical ground for the period from 21. 6. 76 to 15. 9. 76 and after expiry of his leave, the petitioner reported for duty. But he was informed that he had already been released from the office of the respondent No. 3 although the petitioner did not handover charge to anybody. The petitioner was not paid his leave salary nor he was allowed to work in Gauhati in the office of the respondent No. 3. The petitioner did not receive any intimation regarding the fate of his representation. Petitioner thereafter subm­itted several representations by way of reminders to the concerned authorities. Although hopefully awaited favorable order on the rep­resentation, he did not receive any communication about the fate of the representation. The petitioner was not paid his salary. The petitioner did not receive any intimation regarding the fate of his representation. Petitioner thereafter subm­itted several representations by way of reminders to the concerned authorities. Although hopefully awaited favorable order on the rep­resentation, he did not receive any communication about the fate of the representation. The petitioner was not paid his salary. His rep­eated approach to allow him work in office at Gauhati from where he was transferred did not yield any result although in the mean­time in April, 1977, Shri Patgiri another U. D. A was transferred and posted in vacant post of U. D. A. at Kokrajhar office. The petitio­ner resigned to the helpless situation and years rolled on. His ailing mother died for whom he could not provide proper treatment. His wife also fell ill and died without proper treatment during forced period of absence. The petitioner ultimately filed an appeal regist­ered as Case No. 70 ATA of 1982, in the Assam Administrative Tribunal. The learned Tribunal after hearing the petitioner and the respondents by the judgment dtd 24. 9. 83 held that if the authority found the petitioner was absent without leave for a period of more than five years, the authorities could have drawn up a proceeding after serving notice and passed final order in accordance with law, but nothing was done and consequently it was to be held that the petitioner was still in service. The learned Tribunal directed the respondents to pass an order asking the petitioner to join his duties at a place selected by the authority within a period of one month from the date of judgment and that in case the petitioner joined, to regularise the period of absence by granting leave, whatever ava­ilable to the petitioner under the leave Rules and by treating the period not covered1 by granting leave as non duty except for the purpose of pension only. 3. Incompliance of the direction of the learned tribunal, the res­pondents issued posting order to the petitioner asking to join in the establishment of North Lakhimpur and the petitioner joined that post. 3. Incompliance of the direction of the learned tribunal, the res­pondents issued posting order to the petitioner asking to join in the establishment of North Lakhimpur and the petitioner joined that post. The petitioner has thereafter approached this Court in this writ pet­ition for issue of an appropriate writ/direction to the respondents directing them to pay his pay and allowances for the entire period he was not allowed to work at Gauhati because of the transfer order passed and also to quash that part of the order of the learned Tribunal purporting to regularise the period of absence by gra­nting whatever leave available to the petitioner and by treating the remaining period as non - duty except for the purpose of pension only. 4. The respondents have filed an affidavit-in - opposition contend­ing that the petitioner received maximum relief from learned Trib­unal and no case has been made out for invoking the writ jurisdi­ction in this Court. 5. Mr. S. C. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no order on the representation against the transfer order has passed in spite of repeated reminders and the petitioner was released illegally and that the learned' Tribunal having found that he was still in service, the petitioner was entitled to get pay and allowances for the entire period. The learned counsel has also submitted that it is apparent that under compelling circumstances, the petitioner was unable to join at Kokrajhar and that it was incumbent on the part of the respondents to consider the representation and to pass appr­opriate order before purporting to release the petitioner during the period of leave. The petitioner having been unable to join at Kokr­ajhar, another U. D. Asstt. namely, Shri Patgiri was transferred on 9. 4. 77 to Kokrajhar against the vacant post to which the petitioner was transferred. As sack, the administration did not suffer any inc­onvenience or difficulties for the inability of the petitioner to join at Kokrajhar. 6. The learned Govt. Advocate on the other hand, has submitted: that the Tribunal by the impugned judgment and order given max­imum relief to the petitioner. The petitioner was in duty bound to comply with the order of transfer passed by the competent author­ity. The transfer order was passed in the interest of public service. 7. 6. The learned Govt. Advocate on the other hand, has submitted: that the Tribunal by the impugned judgment and order given max­imum relief to the petitioner. The petitioner was in duty bound to comply with the order of transfer passed by the competent author­ity. The transfer order was passed in the interest of public service. 7. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the peti­tioner as well as for the respondents and we have perused the im­pugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal and other materials on records. As per condition of service of the petitioner, he was liable to be transferred from Gauhati to else where in Assam, although ordinarily Office Assistants such as U. D. A and L. D. A are not transferred from one district to another, the order of transfer of the petitioner from one district to another, cannot be held to be without jurisdiction or malafide. We find that the petitioner soon after receipt of the transfer order submitted representation before the Resp­ondent No. 2 praying for revocation of the order on the ground that be was unable to move out of Gauhati as he has to look after his ailing old mother (90 years old). The petitioner in the representa­tion also pointed out hat for the aforesaid reason, he had to for­ego offer of promotions to higher post earlier because promotion to higher post entailed transfer from Gauhati. But he did not find any response to the representation although he was hopeful of favo­ur able order on the representation. In the meantime, the petitioner bad fallen ill and he had to go on leave on medical ground for a certain period and while he was on leave he was released with­out taking over charge from him. The petitioner submitted repres­entations after representations by way of reminders to the Compet­ent Authorities but did not receive any response and under the compelling circumstances, namely, illness of his old mother, he could not move out of Gauhati. It is also found from the record that one Shri Patgiri, UDA in the establishment of the respondent No. 3 was transferred to Kokrajhar in April, 1977 against the vacant past to which the petitioner was originally transferred. No doubt, a government servant is to carry out the lawful order of his Superior employer. It is also found from the record that one Shri Patgiri, UDA in the establishment of the respondent No. 3 was transferred to Kokrajhar in April, 1977 against the vacant past to which the petitioner was originally transferred. No doubt, a government servant is to carry out the lawful order of his Superior employer. But in the instant case the petitioner had submitted representation soon after receipt of the order of transfer stating cogent reason for his inability to carry out the order. It was inc­umbent on the part of the respondent No. 2 to consider and dispose of the representation at an early date. In case it was found that the grounds stated by the petitioner were not genuine, the petitioner could have been asked to report for duty at Kokrajhar after dispo­sal of the representation. The Respondent No 2 remained silent in-spite of repeated representations submitted by the petitioner. The genuineness of the petitioner's difficulty to move out of Gauhati was established by the fact that he had to forego promotion to higher post which is a rare sacrifice on the first of a Government serva­nt. That fact shows that the petitioner's difficulty to move out of Gauhati was genuine. Besides, after Patgiri, another U.D. A. was transferred against the vacant post to which the petitioner was tra­nsferred, the order transferring the petitioner had become ineffective and inoperative and that in view of the petitioner's genuine diffic­ulty, the respondents could have allowed the petitioner to join at Gauhati to discharge his duties. But that was not allowed. A Govt. servant is not or a bonded labour or an alien but a part and par­cel of the department. The Ministerial Staff like U. D. A. L.D.As being low paid employees, ordinarily they are not transferred from one dis­trict to another. No doubt, it is the duty of the Govt. Servant to faithfully carry out the lawful order of his superior/employer, but it is equally incumbent on the part of the superior authority or emp­loyer to look after the genuine difficulties of the employees sympath­etically and to pass appropriate order on consideration of his repre­sentation. Unfortunately, that was not done in the instant case and the petitioner was kept on hanging for long five years. 8. Unfortunately, that was not done in the instant case and the petitioner was kept on hanging for long five years. 8. It is true that no service could be rendered by the petitioner during the last five years and that he is not entitled to get service benefits for the period of absence. But from the materials on records, we find that it was not the petitioner who was alone responsi­ble for that, but the respondents also contributed to absence of the peti­tioner for about 5 years in not disposing of his representations made for revocation of the transfer order and to allow him to work at Gauhati office on genuine grounds. The petitioner suffered a lot. His mother died and his wife also died. As such treating the period of absence which are not covered by granting earned leave or Half Ave­rage Pay Leave as non-duty would b2 too harsh. 9. Under the circumstances, we hold that ends of justice will be met, if the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal so far as it purports to treat the period of absence as non-duty, is modified to the extent that the said period be treated as on duty for the pur­pose of seniority and pension and the petitioner be paid one third wages for that period and we order accordingly. Respondents are directed to pay one third salary to the petitioner for the period of absence which could not be regularised by granting earned leave or half average pay leave, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this judgment and order. 10. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. We make no order as to costs.