JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the posting order dated 26/11/2018 (Annex.5) and seeking a direction not to relieve the petitioner from the present posting place to join the new place of posting and to allow the petitioner to avail the present tenure as last leg at the same place of posting. 2. It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that the petitioner completed 28 years of service and is due to superannuate on 30/4/2020. On 15/5/2018, the petitioner submitted an application to AEC Records through proper channel requesting for extension of tenure at the same station as last leg, which was duly recommended by concerned authority and forwarded to the AEC Records. The AEC Records vide its order dated 25/6/2018 extended the tenure of the petitioner for six months i.e. upto 30/4/2019 with approval from the competent authority. On 6/9/2018 (Annex.3) warning order for retirement of the petitioner on 30/4/2020 was issued. 3. However, by the impugned order dated 26/11/2018 (Annex.5), the petitioner was posted from HQ 83 Inf. Bde. to HQ 11 Inf. Div. and was directed to report by 30/12/2018. The petitioner vide his representation dated 30/11/2018 sought redressal of his grievance seeking cancellation of order dated 26/11/2018, however, the same was not responded to. Feeling aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the ROI : 021/2014, which lays down the policy governing posting and transfer provides for request for extension beyond the prescribed tenure six months before the expiry of tenure and such request is required to be dealt with in terms of various clauses contained therein. 4. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the ROI : 021/2014, which lays down the policy governing posting and transfer provides for request for extension beyond the prescribed tenure six months before the expiry of tenure and such request is required to be dealt with in terms of various clauses contained therein. Reliance has been placed on clause 5(j), which provides that an individual left with less than 1 years of service will not be posted to another station in the interest of service except as stipulated in para 5(o) and para 5(o) provides that personnel posted on compassionate/medical grounds/last tenure and due to retire within one year will also be turned over on completion of two years if not granted extension and as the case of the petitioner does not fall within the said exception and petitioner is due to retire within 1 years, passing of the order of posting the petitioner from the present place of posting is not justified and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Reliance was placed on Hav B. Sakthivel v. Union of India : Writ Petition No. 30698/2018 decided on 10/12/2018 by Madras High Court. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that the petitioner was seeking to take advantage of extension of tenure granted on 25/6/2018, which was essentially granted on account of impending DPC and as the petitioner was not promoted pursuant to the DPC, having completed his tenure at the present place of posting he was bound to be transferred and, therefore, the plea raised in this regard has no substance. 7. Further submissions have been made that reliance placed on ROI : 021/2014 is misplaced inasmuch as the same does not create a blanket prohibition on transferring the personnel who are on the verge of retirement. Further submission was made that when admittedly the normal tenure is two years and petitioner is yet to complete tenure of 1 years before his retirement, the said period on account of same being last leg posting, cannot be extended and, therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. The petitioner made a representation seeking extension of his tenure. Vide signal dated 6/6/2018 (Annex.R/1) it was indicated as under: "Request for extn of tenure in the same stn as last leg(.) ref your letter No. 3001/19/GS(Edn) of May 16 (16) (.) application for extn of tenure in r/o JC-804774F Sub/Instr Narendra Pratap Singh Kanwal has been examined by OIC Record (.) JCO due for DPC 1st chance in 2018 for vacs arising in 2019 (.) case of JCO may be processed for six months (1st spell) extn in terms of para 4 of AEC ROI 021/2014 and AO 25/2001 (.) further extn may be considered after outcome of DPC-2018." 10. Pursuant thereto, the order dated 25/6/2018 extending the tenure of the petitioner upto 30/4/2019 was issued. Whereafter, it is claimed that the petitioner did not get promotion pursuant to the DPC held and, therefore, another signal dated 11/10/2018 (Annex.R/2) was sent inter alia intimating that the petitioner has completed his two years tenure with the brigade and requested for issuing posting order in his respect at the earliest. 11 On 17/10/2018 (Annex.R/3), the Chief Record Officer sought instructions from the HQ 83 Inf. Bde. as under: "1. Ref your Sig No. 2021/25/GS(Edn) dt.11 Oct 2018. 2. JC-804774F Sub/Instr Narendra Pratap Sing Kanwal has been gtd extn upto 30 Apr 2019 based on your letter No. 3001/19/GS(Edn) dt.18 Jun 2018. 3. In view of the above pl confirm whether extn to be cancelled and posting issued to new unit. 4. Suitable action will be taken on receipt of your letter." 12. The above communication was immediately responded by the Brigade HQ vide signal dated 17/10/2018 (Annex.R/4), which reads as under: "POSTING AEC JCO (.) REF YOUR LETTER No. CA2/JC-804774F DATED 17 OCT 18 (.) EXTENNSION GRANTED TO JCO-804774F SUB/INSTR NARENDRA PRATAP SINGH KANWAL SHOULD BE CANCELLED AND ISSUE POSTING ORDER TO NEW UNIT FORTHWITH (.) PL ACCORD PRIORITY." 13. Whereafter, the order impugned dated 26/11/2018 was issued. 14. Whereafter, the order impugned dated 26/11/2018 was issued. 14. A perusal of the above communication would indicate that the respondents were well aware that extension of tenure has been granted to the petitioner till 30/6/2019 and, therefore, specific instructions were sought regarding the said extension as to whether the extension is to be cancelled, to which vide Annex.R/4 (supra) a specific instruction was issued that extension granted be cancelled and posting orders be issued. However, a perusal of the order dated 26/11/2018 according posting to the petitioner would indicate that there is no reference of cancellation of his extension. 15. On a specific query made in this regard, learned ASG, on instructions, submitted that no order cancelling the extension has been passed, however, it was submitted that the order of posting dated 26/11/2018 ipso facto cancels the order of extension. 16. The submission made regarding automatic cancellation of the order granting extension cannot be accepted inasmuch as the respondents were well aware of the requirement to deal with the extension already granted as noticed hereinbefore, and, therefore, had decided/directed for cancellation of extension granted, however, for the reasons best known, the extension has not been cancelled and posting order has been issued, which in effect creates a contradictory position, wherein, during the course of extension granted a fresh posting order has been issued to the petitioner, which aspect cannot be countenanced. 17. So far as the claim made by the petitioner based on provisions of clause 5(j) of ROI laying down the policy governing postings is concerned, the respondents have not dealt with the same and though a stand has been taken in response to the writ petition that the same is not mandatory, however, the decision on the said aspect as such by the competent authority has not been taken and the representation made by the petitioner seeking redressal of his grievance based on last leg posting essentially remains unanswered, as vide Annex.R/6 the same has been returned unactioned without indicating any reason in this regard. 18. In view of the above fact situation, wherein, the order of posting of petitioner dated 26/11/2018 (Annex.5) is in contradiction to the extension of tenure granted to him by order dated 25/6/2018 (Annex.2), which order has not been cancelled so far, the order dated 25/11/2018 (Annex.5) posting the petitioner to HQ 11, Inf. Div. cannot be sustained. 19. 18. In view of the above fact situation, wherein, the order of posting of petitioner dated 26/11/2018 (Annex.5) is in contradiction to the extension of tenure granted to him by order dated 25/6/2018 (Annex.2), which order has not been cancelled so far, the order dated 25/11/2018 (Annex.5) posting the petitioner to HQ 11, Inf. Div. cannot be sustained. 19. Further, the representation made by the petitioner regarding last leg posting also deserves to be dealt with by the competent authority by way of a speaking order, which has been cursorily rejected by order dated 13/12/2018 (Annex.R/6). 20. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed. The order dated 26/11/2018 (Annex.5) posting the petitioner to HQ 11 Inf. Div. from HQ 83 Inf. Bde. is quashed and set aside. The respondents would be free to pass fresh order keeping in view the observations made hereinbefore, however, while passing the said order/before doing so, the respondents would be required to deal with the representation made by the petitioner regarding last leg posting appropriately, by way of a speaking order. 21. No order as to costs.