JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has challenged transfer order dated 30.06.2016, passed by Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Dumka as well as relieving order dated 19.01.2017, passed by Child Development Project Officer, Godda Rural whereby petitioner has been transferred from Godda Rural to Maslia, Dumka. 3. Case of the petitioner is that she was initially appointed as Chief Sevika in the year 1984 and she joined at Boarijor in the office of CDPO, Santhal Pargana, Dumka on 14.06.1984. Thereafter, petitioner was posted at several places holding charge of Lady Supervisor in the district of Godda, Rural. On 29.06.2016, petitioner was also given additional charge of CDPO, Thakur Gangti, Godda. Thereafter, vide order dated 09.07.2016, petitioner was directed to join as CDPO (incharge) Thakur Gangti with immediate effect. Petitioner, thereafter joined as CDPO Thakur Gangti on 11.07.2016. Thereafter again vide order dated 30.06.2016, petitioner along with similarly situated employees has been transferred by the order of Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Dumka from Godda Rural though just one day before she had been given additional charge of CDPO, Thakur Gangti. Though the petitioner had been transferred to maslia but there was no relieving order regarding her joining and as such petitioner continued working as Lady Supervisor as well as Incharge C.D.P.O. at Godda Rural and Thakur Gangti respectively. It is further averred that though petitioner has to superannuate on 31.12.2017 even then she has been harassed by issuance of relieving order dated 19.01.2017 subsequent to transfer order dated 30.06.2016. Petitioner made several representations before the respondents annexing therein resolution no. C.S.-3/M3-1016/80 – 3918, Dated 25.10.1980 published in Bihar Gazette no. 1043, Dated 29.10.1980 and requesting therein to take sympathetic consideration of the matter. However, no order has been passed on the representation of the petitioner and as such, she has knocked door of this Court. 4. Mr. M.M. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order of transfer and relieving have been passed with malafide intention. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents are aware that petitioner is to superannuate on 31.12.2017 and there is specific guidelines issued vide resolution no. C.S.-3/M3-1016/80 – 3918, Dated 25.10.1980 with respect to the transfer of employees at the verge of retirement, but the same has not been considered. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents are aware that petitioner is to superannuate on 31.12.2017 and there is specific guidelines issued vide resolution no. C.S.-3/M3-1016/80 – 3918, Dated 25.10.1980 with respect to the transfer of employees at the verge of retirement, but the same has not been considered. Even the medical grounds of the petitioner has not been taken care of and unnecessarily she has been harassed at the fag end of her service. Mr. M.M. Sharma further argues that in view of the fact that petitioner is going to superannuate in the month of December, his case should be considered sympathetically and appropriate order should be passed taking into consideration guidelines issued by the State Government, particularly clause-3 thereof. 5. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, JC to learned GP-I vehemently opposes contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and further submits that it is a chain transfer and petitioner has been transferred accordingly as per rules. Petitioner has already worked in that place for more than four years and an employee cannot continue at a place according to their own choice for an indefinite period. There is no illegality in the order of transfer and it was only because of the stay order given by this Court she has not joined her transferred place since last seven months. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through rival submission of the parties, this Court is of the view that transfer is incidence of service. Even if an employee is at their fag end of service, they cannot violate order and cannot show disobedience to the order passed by superiors. Though there is specific guidelines for transfer orders, the same has to be considered by giving a sympathetic view to its employees. In the instant case, petitioner is going to superannuate in the month of December, 2017. Her representation regarding the same is already pending before the respondents authorities. Since transfer order has been stayed by this Court vide order dated 18.07.2017, I hereby direct the respondent no. 4 – Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka to take a decision on her representation regarding transfer keeping in view guidelines for transfer, particularly Clause-3 thereof, as she is at fag end of her service. Since transfer order has been stayed by this Court vide order dated 18.07.2017, I hereby direct the respondent no. 4 – Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka to take a decision on her representation regarding transfer keeping in view guidelines for transfer, particularly Clause-3 thereof, as she is at fag end of her service. Let final decision be taken within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order and the same be conveyed to the petitioner immediately thereafter. 7. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions.