JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. The three writ petitioners herein were initially appointed as Peon (Group-D) in the regular scale of pay, in the year 1992, under respondent No. 1, which is an undertaking of the Government of Tripura. With effect from 1st January, 1997, the regular scale of pay of the petitioners was converted to fixed pay and, in consequence thereof, petitioners started drawing a gross sum of Rs. 2,244/- per month as salary. Since the month of January, 2010, the petitioners have been allowed an incentive of Rs. 1,200/- per month in addition to their fixed pay. The petitioners, thus, draw, after deductions, a sum of Rs. 3,100/- per month; whereas regular Group-D employees receive Rs. 9,000/- per month. Challenging reduction of their salary from regular scale to fixed pay, the petitioners have filed a writ petition, which has given rise to WP (C) No. 219 of 2006, and the same is still pending. In the meanwhile, however, 12 (twelve) other persons, similarly situated as the petitioners are, had filed writ petitions, which had given rise to WP (C) Nos. 327 of 2000 to 338 of 2000, challenging reduction of their regular scale of pay by the respondent No. 1 to fixed pay scale. Though a learned Single Judge of this Court had allowed those writ petitions on 8.12.2005, a Division Bench, in a writ appeal, set aside the directions issued by the order, dated 8.12.2005. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their writ petitions, the said fixed pay employees of the respondent Corporation have preferred a Special Leave Petition, which is still pending. 2. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are residents of Ranir Bazar, which is at a distance of about 13 km from Agartala, and the petitioner No. 3 is the resident of Barjala, which is at a distance of about 4km from Agartala Head Post Office. While the family of the petitioner No. 1 consists of his wife and two sons, the family of the petitioner No. 2 consists of his wife and two school going children and the family of the petitioner No. 3 consists of his wife and a daughter, all of whom reside in a rented house at Agartala. By an order, dated 18.1.2010, the petitioners have been transferred to different places, the petitioner Nos. By an order, dated 18.1.2010, the petitioners have been transferred to different places, the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 having been posted to Kanchanpur Brick Field, Sonaicharri Brick Field and Jirania Brick Field respectively. 3. The petitioners have put to challenge the order, dated 18.1.2010, aforementioned, on, broadly speaking, four grounds. Firstly, the respondent Corporation, being a Government undertaking is bound by the circulars, issued by the Government of Tripura as regards transfer of Class IV staff. In terms of the circular, dated 4.3.1978, issued by the Government, Class IV staff should be posted within their respective home district/sub- division and, preferably, to the administrative centre nearest to their home. The impugned transfer order has been issued, according to the petitioners, in violation of the policy, which the said circular professes, and is, therefore, liable to be quashed. Secondly, there are altogether 150 Group-D employees under respondent No. 1 and out of them, 50 are employed in the regular scale of pay, but the present petitioners have been picked up for transfer, because of the fact that they have litigations with the respondent Corporation pending and, thus, the impugned transfer order is mala fide and motivated and this becomes clear from the fact that while transferring the petitioners by the impugned order, dated 18.1.2010, to distant places, the respondents have not transferred Gopal Modak, a regular Group-D employee, out side the Head Office inasmuch as Gopal Modak has been transferred from one Branch to another Branch of the respondent Corporation within the Head Office of the Corporation. Thirdly, the daily rated workers and fixed pay employees should not be subjected to transfer inasmuch as they are not covered by fundamental rules, which govern regular employees of the State Government. Fourthly, the impugned transfer order is discriminatory inasmuch as the petitioners have been transferred to distant places, whereas Gopal Modak, a regular employee, who is covered by the same transfer order, has been merely shifted, as already mentioned hereinbefore, from one Branch to another Branch at the Head Office of the respondent Corporation. 4. Fourthly, the impugned transfer order is discriminatory inasmuch as the petitioners have been transferred to distant places, whereas Gopal Modak, a regular employee, who is covered by the same transfer order, has been merely shifted, as already mentioned hereinbefore, from one Branch to another Branch at the Head Office of the respondent Corporation. 4. Resisting the writ petition, the respondents have contended that the transfers, which form subject matter of challenge, in the present writ petition, have been made in exigency of service and this Court, in exercise of its power of judicial review, may not interfere with the impugned transfer order inasmuch as the same has not been issued mala fide; rather, the impugned transfers are in the interest of the smooth functioning of the respondent Corporation. The reduction in the scale of pay of the present petitioners has been legally made and this reduction has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court inasmuch as the petitioners, having not been appointed against regularly created posts, are not regular employees and could not have been legally granted regular scale of pay and it is primarily for this reason that the reduction of regular pay scale to fixed pay of the employees, such as, the petitioners, has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court. All orders and circulars of the State Government are not ipso facto applicable to the employees of the respondent Corporation. It may be true that by the circular, dated 4.3.1978, as contended by the petitioners, the State Government has directed that Class IV staff should be posted within their respective sub-division, and, preferably, to the administrative centre, which is nearest to their home town, yet the circulars are merely guidelines and do not confer any enforceable right on the petitioners. The impugned order is not, however, discriminatory inasmuch as the impugned order has been made in exigency of service. 5. In their affidavit, the Group-D employees, engaged by the respondent Corporation, have been shown, in a table form, as under : The detailed names and particulars of posts with the numbers so posted of various Group-D employees, have been shown as under : 6. The petitioners too, on the other hand, have furnished a list of the employees, whose places of posting have not been correctly shown in the tabular form. The petitioners too, on the other hand, have furnished a list of the employees, whose places of posting have not been correctly shown in the tabular form. This list, containing the places of engagement of some of the Group-D employees, reads as under : Head Office 1. Chandan Dutta (Marketing Section) 2. Ujjal Debbarma (Cash Section) Pharmaceuticals 3. Rabindra Deb (Badharghat) 4. Nitya Lal Paul (Badharghat) 5. Habul Deb (Badharghat) S.E.P.T. 6. Gosai Das (Badharghat) Ware House (CL) 7. Sunil Sarkar (Badharghat) 8. Sunil Debnath (Badharghat) 9. Shiv Kumar Das (Badharghat) 10. Bimal Ghosh (Badharghat) Weighbridge 11. Amar Paul (Check Post) Land Custom 12. Ajit Bihari Bardhan (Check Post) P. Unit 13. Sanjib Dasgupta (A.D. Nagar) Food Canning Factory 14. Ranjit Kumar Das (A.D. Nagar) 7. Appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel, has submitted that the petitioners are not Government employees, the fundamental rules, which are, otherwise, applicable to other Government employees, cannot be applied to the present petitioners and, hence, the petitioners are not liable to suffer any transfer from the places, where they were initially posted. On being pointed out by this Court that if the petitioners are not covered by fundamental rules and they are not Government employees, then the Circular, dated 4.3.1978, too, which the petitioners rely upon, would not be applicable to the petitioners and the petitioners would not be entitled to receive any benefit from the said Circular, this aspect of the petitioners' case has not been pressed. 8. Referring to the decision of this Court in Subhas Sarkar and Anr. v. State of Tripura and Anr. reported in (1998) 2 GLR 33 and the decision, dated 11.12.2006, rendered by this Court in WP (C) No. 441 of 2006 Pradip Guha v. TSIC Ltd., Mr. Bhowmik contends that the petitioners, being fixed pay employees, cannot be transferred, particularly, when their pay is very low. In support of his contention that a low pay employee, such as, the present petitioners, shall not be transferred, Mr. Bhowmik also places reliance on B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka and Ors. AIR 1986 SC 1955 ). 9. Controverting the submissions made, on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the respondent Corporation has given, in detail, the places, where its Group-D staffs are engaged. Though it is true, submits Mr. AIR 1986 SC 1955 ). 9. Controverting the submissions made, on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the respondent Corporation has given, in detail, the places, where its Group-D staffs are engaged. Though it is true, submits Mr. Deb, that the petitioners have litigation pending with the respondent Corporation, there are other fixed pay employees also, who have the litigations pending with the respondent Corporation, and, in the absence of any specific particular given, in this regard, by the petitioners it cannot be said that the petitioners have been picked up mala fide and made to suffer the impugned transfer order, when similarly placed some other fixed pay employees have been working at Agartala. 10. Apart from the fact that the petitioners have litigations pending with the respondent Corporation, the petitioners have not been able to show, points out Mr. Deb, any other reason, which, according to the petitioners, could indicate mala fide on the part of the respondent Corporation in making the impugned order. Hence, contends Mr. Deb, the submission of the petitioners that the impugned transfer order is mala fide is wholly unfounded and cannot survive in the face of the fact that the other fixed pay employees of Group-D, working under the respondent Corporation, are still working at the Headquarters of the Corporation, within Agartala sub-division and elsewhere. Mr. Deb also submits that the impugned transfer order is not discriminatory inasmuch as the respondent Corporation, having taken into account its functioning and requirements, has opted to transfer Gopal Modak from one Branch to another Branch of the headquarters and transferred the petitioners to different places. In this regard, Mr. Deb further points out that most of the regular Group-D employees, who have been kept at Agartala, are female or, if male, the employee is a disabled person or exigency of service needs him to be so retained. 11. It has been further submitted by Mr. Deb that transfer is an incidence of employment and merely because of the fact that an employee is a fixed pay employee, it cannot be contended that he cannot be transferred unless the conditions of the employee's service specifically provides otherwise. The reliance placed, in this regard, on behalf of the petitioners, on Sub-has Sarkar and Anr. Deb that transfer is an incidence of employment and merely because of the fact that an employee is a fixed pay employee, it cannot be contended that he cannot be transferred unless the conditions of the employee's service specifically provides otherwise. The reliance placed, in this regard, on behalf of the petitioners, on Sub-has Sarkar and Anr. (supra), B. Varadha Rao (supra) and Pradip Guha (supra), is, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, wholly misplaced; so contends Mr. Deb. 12. It is pointed out by Mr. Deb that even in the case of B. Varadha Rao (supra), which the petitioners have relied upon, the Supreme Court has not categorically held that a Class III and/or Class IV employees cannot be transferred at all. The observations, made in B. Varadha Rao (supra), are, submits Mr. Deb, in respect of frequent unscheduled and unreasonable transfers, which points out Mr. Deb, uproot a family. The case at hand is not, according to Mr. Deb, a case, wherein the petitioners have been able to show any mala fide on the part of the respondent Corporation. 13. As far as the circular, dated 4.3.1978, is concerned, Mr. Deb points out that it is merely a guideline, and does not vest in the petitioners any enforceable right. Unless an order of transfer is, contends Mr. Deb, vitiated by mala fide or made in violation of any statutory provision, a transfer, being an incidence of Government service, cannot be interfered with. Reliance, in support of this submission, is place by Mr. Deb on Union of India Ors. v. S.L. Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357 . 14. While considering the present writ petition, it needs to be borne in mind that Rama Jois, J., took the view in a series of writ petitions in Karnataka High Court that transfer is a condition of service and, therefore, a Government servant has a right of appeal against the order of transfer under Rule 19 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. As against this view, Dodda Kalegouda, J., took the view, in similar writ petition, that no appeal lay to the State Government against an order of transfer. As a Division Bench upheld the view taken that the appeal did not lie, the decision of the Division Bench came to be examined by the Supreme Court in B. Varadha Rao (supra). As against this view, Dodda Kalegouda, J., took the view, in similar writ petition, that no appeal lay to the State Government against an order of transfer. As a Division Bench upheld the view taken that the appeal did not lie, the decision of the Division Bench came to be examined by the Supreme Court in B. Varadha Rao (supra). In B. Varadha Rao (supra), the Apex Court, in no certain words, laid down that a Government servant is liable to be transferred to a similar post in the same cadre, this is a normal feature and incidence of Government service and no Government servant can claim to remain in a particular place or in a particular post unless, of course, his appointment itself is to a specified and non-transferable post. 15. It becomes, therefore, clear that transfer is an incidence of Government service. As the respondent Corporation, even according to the petitioners, is covered by Article 12 of the Constitution, the petitioners, though fixed pay and Group-D employees, can, indeed, be transferred to such posts, which fall under Group-D with fixed pay scale, particularly, when the petitioners are fixed pay employees and are not shown to have appointed against any specific non-transferable post. The petitioners have not been able to produce any material whatsoever on record to show that their appointments to Group-D post with fixed pay is a non-transferable post. In such circumstances. I do not find any force in the contention of the petitioners that they cannot be transferred from one place to another by the respondent Corporation, wherever the establishment of the respondent Corporation may be located. What is, however, true is that transfer of the petitioners, same as any other Government employee, cannot be arbitrary, cannot be mala fide, cannot be discriminatory nor can the respondent Corporation ignore wholly the hardship of any of its employees and if such hardship can be removed, the respondent Corporation must remove the hardship by making suitable transfer order(s) provided that such hardship can be removed without affecting adversely the smooth, proper and effective functioning of the respondent Corporation. 16. As far as the case of Subhas Sarkar (supra), is concerned, that was a case of daily rated workers. As the daily rated workers could not have been forced to go from one place to another, their transfer from one place to another was interfered with by this Court. 16. As far as the case of Subhas Sarkar (supra), is concerned, that was a case of daily rated workers. As the daily rated workers could not have been forced to go from one place to another, their transfer from one place to another was interfered with by this Court. This apart, the Court found that the petitioners were very poor daily wage earners, they were earning Rs. 37.50 P. per day. The case, at hand, is not the one, where the petitioners are daily rated workers. If they are unwilling to go outside Agartala, the respondent Corporation may rescind their employment and engage another person, as a fixed pay employee, at the place, where the service of such a class of employee is needed by the respondent Corporation. They are employees on fixed pay scale and, hence, their cases cannot be equated with regular or even daily rated workers. As far as the case of Pradip Guha (supra) is concerned, the Court interfered with the transfer, because it found no justification for the Government to transfer the petitioner, who had challenged his transfer to a place outside Agartala. Thus, the decision, in Pradip Guha's case, is a decision, which is based on facts of the said case and, on consideration of the facts of said case, the Court had taken the view that the petitioner therein ought not to have been transferred. The case of Pradip Guha (supra) cannot, therefore, be relied upon, as a precedent, to contend that a fixed pay employee cannot be transferred. 17. Reverting to the decision of S.L. Abbas (supra), it heeds to be pointed out that in S.L. Abbas's case (supra), the Supreme Court has very clearly held that the guidelines issued, laying down the policy of transfer of Government employees, shall be adhered to; but does not confer any legally enforceable right in the employee concerned. Thus, the guidelines, issued by the Government, governing transfer of its employees, shall be, ordinarily, adhered to; but such guidelines cannot be said to have any statutory force and do not confer legally enforceable right on the employees, who are governed by such guidelines. 18. Thus, the guidelines, issued by the Government, governing transfer of its employees, shall be, ordinarily, adhered to; but such guidelines cannot be said to have any statutory force and do not confer legally enforceable right on the employees, who are governed by such guidelines. 18. In the present case too, the guidelines, issued on 4.3.1978, do not, even if these guidelines are still in force, confer any enforceable right on the petitioners, though these guidelines are required to be borne in mind by the respondent Corporation, while making a transfer order. This does not, however, take away the respondent Corporation's right to transfer its employees including the petitioners. In clear words, the Supreme Court, speaking through B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. has held, in S.L. Abbas's case (supra), that unless an order of transfer has been vitiated by mala fide or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it and who should be transferred where is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide and not for the Court to determine. 19. I may point out that Mr. Bhowmik, for the purpose of showing that Class III and Class IV employees should not be transferred at all, relies on para 6 of the decision in B. Varadha Rao (supra). For the purpose of better appreciation, para 6 is reproduced below : 6. One cannot but deprecate that frequent, unscheduled and unreasonable transfers can uproot a family, cause irreparable harm to a Government servant and drive him to desperation. It disrupts the education of his children and leads to numerous other complications and problems and results in hardship and demoralisation. It therefore follows that the policy of transfer should be reasonable and fair and should apply to everybody equally. But, at the same time, it cannot be forgotten that so far as superior or more responsible posts are concerned, continued posting at one station or in one department of the Government is not conducive to good administration. It creates vested interest and therefore we find that even from the British times the general policy has been to restrict the period of posting for a definite period. We wish to add that the position of Class III and Class IV employees stand on a different footing. We trust that the Government will keep these considerations in view while making on order of transfer." (Emphasis is added) 20. We wish to add that the position of Class III and Class IV employees stand on a different footing. We trust that the Government will keep these considerations in view while making on order of transfer." (Emphasis is added) 20. From the observations made above in B. Varadha Rao (supra), what becomes clear is that the Supreme Court has deprecated frequent, unscheduled and unreasonable transfers, which have the effect of uprooting a family in the sense that it disrupts the education of the children of the employee and leads to numerous other complications and problems and results in hardship and demoralisation. What is also indicated by the above observations, made in B. Varadha Rao (supra), is that superior or more responsible officers shall not be kept in one post for a long time inasmuch as long tenure is not conducive to good administration, because it creates vested interest and it is for this reason, observed the Supreme Court, that even from the British time, the general policy has been to restrict the period of posting for a definite period. While saying so, the Supreme Court further observed, in B. Varadha Rao, (supra), that so far as the position of Class III and Class IV employees is concerned, they stand on a different footing meaning thereby that a Class III or Class IV employee can be retained in a post, at a particular station, for longer period than the period for which a superior officer is, normally, kept posted. These observations, made in B. Varadha Rao (supra), cannot be stretched to mean that Class III and Class IV employees, even when their services are transferable, cannot be transferred at all. The contention, therefore, of Mr. Bhowmik, relying upon the above observations made in B. Varadha Rao (supra), that a low paid employee cannot be transferred at all is not a correct proposition of law and cannot, therefore, be accepted. 21. What crystallizes from the above discussion is that when a circular, issued by the Government, contains guidelines in respect of transfers of its employees, the Government and the Government undertakings must, normally, adhere to, and apply to the extent possible, the guidelines in every transfer. This does not mean that these guidelines confer any enforceable right on the every employee so much so that any infraction with the guidelines can make the Court interfere with a transfer order. This does not mean that these guidelines confer any enforceable right on the every employee so much so that any infraction with the guidelines can make the Court interfere with a transfer order. There is nothing in law that a low paid employee cannot be transferred at all. A transfer being an incidence of service, particularly, in a Government Corporation, cannot be interfered with unless the employee can show that his appointment was to a specified fixed post and that his service is one, which is not transferable. A transfer order, which is not shown to be mala fide or in violation of any statutory provision, cannot be interfered, with by a Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 unless an extreme case of hardship is made out. On the basis of some compassion, a transfer order, which is, otherwise valid, cannot be disturbed by a Court in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226. 22. In the light of the law as discussed above, when I revert to the present case, what attracts the attention is that the engagement of the Group-D employees, as indicated by the respondents in their affidavit, is not materially different from the one, which the petitioners point out. In most of the establishments at the Headquarters of the respondent Corporation, the regular employees, who have been retained, are female and if they are male, they are not shown to be wholly unjustified or mala fide. Merely because some employees, with regular pay scale, have been kept at Agartala, it does not, as a corollary, follow that petitioners are discriminated and/or that their transfers are mala fide, particularly, when many of the fixed pay employees too are still, admittedly, working at the headquarters and within the sub-division of Agartala. 23. There in nothing on record to show that only fixed pay employees are being transferred and regular employees are being kept at the Headquarters by the respondent Corporation, Except for the fact that Gopal Modak had been retained at the Headquarters, the impugned order of transfer, in the absence of any other material, showing either mala fide or discrimination, cannot be interfered with. There is nothing on record to show that Gopal Modak has been favoured by the respondent Corporation. 24. There is nothing on record to show that Gopal Modak has been favoured by the respondent Corporation. 24. As pointed out above, nothing could be submitted, on behalf of the petitioners, to show that as a matter of general practice, regular employees have been kept in the Head Office and the fixed pay employees have been transferred. There are several fixed pay employees, who, even after the impugned transfer order, have been retained. When a fixed pay employee, as in the case of the petitioners, is liable to be transferred, the present impugned transfer order cannot be interfered with merely on the ground that the petitioners are fixed pay employees. Had the decision of this Court been that a fixed pay Group-D employee cannot be transferred at all, the matter would have been different. As already discussed above, nothing could be pointed out, on behalf of the petitioners, to show that a fixed pay Group-D employee cannot be transferred to another place where a fixed pay Group-D employee is working or where service of a fixed pay Group-D employee is needed by the respondent Corporation. 25. Let me, now, come to the petitioners' grievance that they have been transferred to distant places. 26. As regards the fact that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have been transferred to distant places is not in dispute. Their transfers, though not mala fide or discriminatory, do need to be re- examined by the respondent Corporation, for, an order of transfer is also an administrative order and like any other administrative order, a transfer order too must take into account all relevant factor in order to avoid the vice of arbitrariness. Hardship, which a transfer order causes to a transferred employee and his family, is a relevant factor, which needs to be taken into account by an administrator before making a transfer order and a transfer, which causes hardship to an employee, should be avoided unless exigencies of service need otherwise. This Court is also of the view that until the time the impugned order, so far as the same relates to the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, is examined and appropriate further order(s) are passed by the respondents, the operation of the impugned order shall, to the extent aforementioned, remain suspended. 27. This Court is also of the view that until the time the impugned order, so far as the same relates to the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, is examined and appropriate further order(s) are passed by the respondents, the operation of the impugned order shall, to the extent aforementioned, remain suspended. 27. As far as the petitioner No. 3 is concerned, he contends that he has been transferred to a place, which is at a distance of 25 km away from Agartala, but the respondents point out that the place to which the petitioner No. 3 has been transferred is within the sub-division of Agartala. The transfer of the petitioner No. 3, being within the sub-division of Agartala, cannot be said to be per se illegal or arbitrary. I have already held that neither the transfer of the petitioner No. 3 nor the transfer of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are mala fide and/or discriminatory. 28. Considering, however, the fact that the petitioner No. 3 claims that he is required to incur Rs. 40/- per day for his conveyance from the place, where he presently resides, it is an aspect, which should be taken into account by the respondent Corporation. Though this Court does not find that transfer of the petitioner No. 3, within the sub-division of Agartala, is illegal, arbitrary, mala fide or discriminatory, this Court is of the view that the respondent Corporation, as a model State Corporation, should nevertheless re-examine the case of the petitioner No. 3 too and, then, pass whatever order(s) the respondent Corporation deems fit and proper and until the time a decision is taken, in this regard, by the respondent Corporation, the impugned transfer order, as regards the petitioner No. 3 too, shall remain suspended. 29. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, the respondent Corporation needs to re-examine the transfer order, which stands impugned in the present writ petition, in the light of the grievances, which the petitioners have expressed, and upon such consideration, as is permissible in law, the respondent Corporation shall take necessary decision and make appropriate order(s). Until the time a re-examination of the impugned transfer order takes place, and appropriate order(s) of transfer is passed afresh, the impugned transfer order shall remain suspended. 30. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall stand disposed of. Petition allowed.