ORDER : NOOTY. RAMAMOHANA RAO, J. This Review Application has been preferred by the writ petitioner/appellant, seeking a review of our judgment and order referred in W.A.No.1566 of 2016 dated 7.12.2016. 2. Heard Shri N. Subramaniyan, learned counsel for the Review Applicant for a considerable length of time. 3. The writ petitioner, a Graduate Engineer, has challenged the validity and correctness of an order passed by the State Government contained in their G.O.(3D) No.50, Highways (HL2) Department dated 13th April, 2007, imposing on him, the minor penalty of withholding of one annual grade increment, without cumulative effect. 4. When the Writ Petitioner preferred the Writ Appeal, complaining very bitterly the method and the manner in which Justice C.S. Karnan heard and decided the Writ Petition, we thought it more appropriate to give a fresh look independently and hence, we, virtually heard the writ petition on merits, instead of confining our scrutiny as an Appellate Court. 5. During the course of our order, we have pointed out that while the writ petitioner was working at Puzhal Panchayat Union, as an Assistant Engineer, on 7th February, 2000, the District Collector, Tiruvallur, has issued an order, transferring and posting him to R.K. Pet Panchayt Union. But, the writ petitioner did not carry out the said order of transfer, on the precious plea that the District Collector lacks competence to transfer him and that he can only be transferred by the Divisional Engineer of the Highways Department, within Division and within the Circle by the Superintending Engineer of the Highways Department. 6. It will be appropriate to note that the writ petitioner submitted a representation to the Chief Engineer, Highways Department against the said order of transfer. It appears, the Chief Engineer through his Memo dated 27th March, 2000, advised the writ petitioner to carry out the order of transfer and wait for the Rural Works Department to surrender him to the Highways Department, so that Highways Department can issue the posting orders. Even then, he did not carry out the order of transfer. Subsequently, on 18th January, 2001, he has been placed under suspension by the Director of Rural Works Department, pending enquiry. Even then, he did not carry out the order of transfer. Subsequently, on 18th January, 2001, he has been placed under suspension by the Director of Rural Works Department, pending enquiry. It is thereafter, the writ petitioner approached the Administrative Tribunal, challenging the order of transfer by filing an Original Application No.6102 of 2000 and the Tribunal while entertaining the said Original Application, on 21st August 2000, by a cryptic order, interim stay was granted, without assigning any reason as to why such an interim order of stay of operation of the transfer order was granted, nearly after a period of six months from the date of the order of transfer. 7. Be that as it may, the writ petitioner was reinstated and was issued with necessary posting orders by the Chief Engineer of Highways Department and ultimately, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the writ petitioner for the acts of insubordination, culminated in the punishment inflicted by the Sate Government through their Order in G.O.(3D) No.50, Highways (HL2) Department dated 13th April, 2007, withholding one annual increment, without cumulative effect. It was against the said order, the Writ Petition was instituted. 8. We have clearly noticed during the course of our judgment that the State Government for securing higher degree of administrative efficiency and improving upon the quality of services to be rendered in particular to achieve the object of Rural Works Development, have decided to bifurcate the Rural Works Department from the Highways Department and keep exclusively the Rural Works Department under the control of the Director of Rural Works Department, as the Head of the Department and that the District Collector of each Districts as the Controlling Head. The modalities relating to bifurcation and allocation of staff in between the Rural Works Department and the Highways Department, are not yet finalised. Pending said issue, the Collector has passed orders of transfer of 7th February, 2000, transferring the writ petitioner from out of Puzhal Panchayat Union to R.K. Pet Panchayat Union. 9. During the course of our order, we have also noticed that the writ petitioner has not exhibited even a little sense of responsibility. Transfer from one place to another is purely an incidence of service, so long as transferability is a condition of service itself. There is no dispute that the service of the writ petitioner is transferable from place to place. Transfer from one place to another is purely an incidence of service, so long as transferability is a condition of service itself. There is no dispute that the service of the writ petitioner is transferable from place to place. It is the exigencies of service, administrative necessities and also with a view to prevent vested interest from being developed, periodical transfer of employees is undertaken. While one can protest against any such unjust transfer, but, somewhere, down the line, the discipline of a Government servant as enshrined in the Conduct Rules, requires him to carry out the order of transfer. The interest of an individual is liable to be subjugated to the larger public good and interest of the State. Therefore, call of duty requires every disciplined Government servant to carry out the orders of transfer. 10. While lodging a protest or submitting a representation for a recall or modification of the orders of transfer, Government servants bound by discipline are required to carry out such an order. However, if an order of transfer is not carried out, as a show of defiance by a Government servant, the 'Service Delivery Mechanism' of the State Government breaks down and it is the services to the general public would get impaired greatly, bringing disrepute to the Government. Apart from unjustly imposing the hardship upon the citizens, who, are entitled to derive corresponding services from the individual. The writ petitioner has no concern for all the aforesaid factors. The State Government while reiterating its policy measure to bifurcate Highways and Rural Works Department and constitute them as two different entities for securing improved administrative delivery have shown necessary consideration by preferring to impose a minor punishment for insubordination exhibited. 11. Therefore, we are of the view that the present Review Application is an absolutely routine exercise indulged in. Distinction between re-hearing of a matter and the review hearing is completely lost sight of, more with a view to convey the sense of disappointment, if not displeasure, about the Judgment rendered by the Courts. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is 'no error apparent on record' of Judgment rendered in Writ Appeal No. 1566 of 2016, warranting recall or re-consideration of the said Judgment. 12. We accordingly dismiss this Review Application, as it is without any merit. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is 'no error apparent on record' of Judgment rendered in Writ Appeal No. 1566 of 2016, warranting recall or re-consideration of the said Judgment. 12. We accordingly dismiss this Review Application, as it is without any merit. We impose costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid, by the applicant, within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the High Court Legal Services Authority.