1. Petitioner was posted as 21/C in 35 Bn. Srinagar. In terms of impugned order/signal dated 1st April, 2012, petitioner, along with other persons has been promoted to the rank of Commanding Officer (CO) and ordered to be posted in 195 Bn, which is stationed at Chattisgarh. Petitioner being aggrieved of his posting in 195 Bn. at Chattisgarh, has filed this writ petition. 2. On 4th May, the Court directed for staying of the posting of the petitioner and it was further directed that he shall be allowed to continue at the place where he was working prior to issuance of impugned order. On notice issued, respondents have filed reply affidavit. Petitioner has also filed rejoinder. 3. Mr. B.A.Bashir, learned senior counsel, appearing for petitioner submitted that the transfer of the petitioner is bad in law for following reasons:- a. Transfer has been made against the general principles of transfer. b. Recommendations were made in respect of four persons including the petitioner for their postings in Battalions where they were working, but petitioner alone has been discriminated being posted in 195 Bn at Chattisgarh, whereas other three persons have been retained in their own Battalions. c. The wife of the petitioner is suffering from various ailments and she is being treated at Srinagar. Petitioner has only one school going daughter and there is no other person to look after his wife and from his place of proposed posting he has to travel about 500 Kilometers to get his daughter admitted in the school so as to enable her to get proper education. d. The petitioner has worked at difficult postings and has been sent third time to Chattisgarh. e. About fourteen officers who were junior to petitioner have not been transferred but petitioner has been transferred. 4. Mr. Makroo, Lerarned ASG, submitted that the transfer policy which has been referred to and relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable to his case as that pertains to the case of npn-gazetted officers, whereas the petitioner is holding a gazetted rank. Learned counsel further submitted that the ailments from which the wife of the petitioner is suffering are not that serious which would warrant cancellation of his posting to Chattisgarh. Learned counsel further submitted that the ailments from which the wife of the petitioner is suffering are not that serious which would warrant cancellation of his posting to Chattisgarh. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner is duty bound to follow the lawful command of the competent authority and his non-compliance with the order impugned in the writ petition would tantamount to misconduct. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been posted at Chattisgarh after considering the overall requirements of the force. Learned counsel referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd, Appellant v. Shri Bhagwan and Anr, respondents reported in (2001) 8 SCC 574 and case titled S.C.Saxena, Appellant v. Union of India and Ors, respondents reported in (2006) 9 SCC 583 and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. It appears that parties are reeling under misconception of law by referring to posting of the petitioner at Chattisgarh as transfer. The employee borne on a particular category/cadre of service can be transferred from one place to another place. The Petitioner has not been transferred as Second-in-Command from one place to another place. The petitioner, in fact, has been promoted to the rank of CO. The petitioner after his promotion to the rank of CO has been ordered to be posted in 195 Bn, which is stationed at Chattisgarh. This posting is in sequel to the promotion to post of CO. This in law can not be said to be transfer of petitioner from one place to another place as he has not been transferred in his own rank. 6. The other issues raised would require to be answered. Four persons were recommended by the authorities for being retained on their promotion in respective Battalions where they were working in the lower rank out of them only petitioner after his promotion has been ordered to be posted in a different Battalion which is stationed at Chattisgarh, whereas three persons have been retained in their respective Battalions. The officer's who figure at serial numbers' 9, 11 and 20 of the impugned order/signal dated 1st April, 2012 including Shri Vinay Anand Prakash who was posted in 166 Bn, has been retained in 166 Bn, on his promotion to the rank of CO. The officer's who figure at serial numbers' 9, 11 and 20 of the impugned order/signal dated 1st April, 2012 including Shri Vinay Anand Prakash who was posted in 166 Bn, has been retained in 166 Bn, on his promotion to the rank of CO. It would require to be ascertained as to whether the petitioner who has already been twice posted at Chattisgarh has to be posted there again. Even the issue of educational career of the only daughter of the petitioner has to be also looked into. Nothing is said as to why and for what reasons Vinay Anand Prakash on his promotion to the rank of CO has been retained in 166 Bn and Shri D.S. Visen and Munna K.R. Singh have been retained in their Battalions on their promotion to the rank of CO. 7. True it is that petitioner is member of disciplined force and is duty bound to follow the lawful orders of the superior authorities. The petitioner, however, if aggrieved of the actions of the superior officers has a right given by the Constitution of India and the statutory rules to approach the Court of law for seeking vindication of his lawful rights. Challenging an order before the Court of law would not tantamount to defying the lawful orders of the superior authorities and will not constitute misconduct in law. A person/employee can not be denied of his right to approach the Court of law for seeking redressal of his just and lawful grievance. In this case, the petitioner immediately after his posting at Chattisgarh approached the respondents with representation, and even gave option that incase his representation for his posting in the rank of CO at nearer place is not accepted then he would forgo the promotion to the rank of CO. 8. Mr. Makroo, learned ASGI, submitted that all the representations filed by the concerned officers have been rejected and representations have not been dealt with individually. Every officer must have projected different grounds in representations for seeking posting at a particular place. The respondents were duty bound to consider all the representations individually and take decision thereon on their own merits. Makroo, learned ASGI, submitted that all the representations filed by the concerned officers have been rejected and representations have not been dealt with individually. Every officer must have projected different grounds in representations for seeking posting at a particular place. The respondents were duty bound to consider all the representations individually and take decision thereon on their own merits. Rejecting all the representations by a single order would show that respondents have treated different claims of persons similarly which is not countenanced in law and such act is violative of the rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The issue would require to be considered by the authorities a fresh. 9. The judgments cited at bar by the learned counsel for the respondents are materially different from the facts of this case. In S. A. Sexana's Case, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is duty of the officer to comply with the transfer order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has not prevented the officer from seeking redressal of his grievance from the Court of law on available just and lawful grounds. In the case of Shri Bhagwan, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated as to in which circumstances the order of transfer can be judicially reviewed. The case of the petitioner is not that of transfer but is about posting. 10. For the above stated reasons this petition is disposed of in the following manner; The respondents are directed to re-consider the posting of the petitioner as Commanding Officer in the light of representations made by him and in view of the observations made in this order. The respondents to consider and take decision preferably within four weeks from the date copy of this order is served. Till the decision is taken the order dated 4th May, 2012 provided by Court shall remain in operation. The petitioner will have right to re-agitate the matter in accordance with law. Disposed of alongwith connected CMP(S).