JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order of transfer (Annexure-9). Factual Matrix 3. The petitioner is a disciplined member of Border Security Force (for short “BSF”). He has been transferred from Hazaribagh to 171 Battalion, BSF, Chhattisgarh, in compliance to HQ, DG, BSF (Estt. Section), SIG No. R/3406, dated 31.05.2017 and Signal No. R/3403 dated 19.06.2017. 4. Mr. C.S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been transferred from Hazaribagh to Chhattisgarh and against the said transfer order, he made representation before the respondents authorities quoting the guidelines of the transfer with a specific prayer not to relieve him as his son is a disabled child and is getting treatment at AIIMS, New Delhi. Learned counsel further submits that office memorandum dated 06.06.2014 relates to posting of government employee, who is also a caregiver of a disabled dependent. Learned counsel submits that though he had made a representation but the respondents-authorities have not considered the same though there is a specific guidelines as mentioned in Clause 3 & 4 of the said office memorandum. The authorities should have considered the office memorandum and should have given a patient hearing, taking into consideration office memorandum and as such, transfer order is malicious and should be stayed. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Gopal Krishna Prasad, JC to ASGI, submits that it is a routine transfer and it is not that the petitioner has been transferred individually. Learned counsel submits that in absence of counter-affidavit and specific instruction regarding the relieving of the petitioner, he is not in a position to state whether the petitioner has been transferred or not. 6. Be that as it may, since the impugned order (Annexure-9) itself shows that on the date of transfer i.e. on 02.06.2017, the name of the petitioner stood struck from the strength of STC, BSF, Hazaribagh, which will be taken as a relieving order but there is no such relieving order. However, let status quo be maintained, if petitioner has not been relieved. 7. However, let status quo be maintained, if petitioner has not been relieved. 7. If the petitioner files a fresh representation before the respondents-authorities annexing office memorandum dated 06.06.2014, the respondents-authorities are directed to consider the same taking into consideration Clause 3 and 4 of the said office memorandum and if the case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of Clause 3 and 4, the same should be considered and suitable orders be passed assigning reasons in accordance with law. The entire exercise has to be completed within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.