JUDGMENT : S. TALAPATRA, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 3 and Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondent No. 2. 2. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 16.09.2021 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 653 of 2021. The learned single Judge in the said order dated 16.09.2021 has observed inter-alia: “By the impugned order he is transferred from Agartala to Kumarghat. Undisputedly, the petitioner is holding a transferable post. In the matters of transfer, the Courts have very limited jurisdiction. The petitioner is also not holding a lowly placed post in the organization but is a senior management level officer. The issues of personal difficulties and approaching retirement are matters to be considered by the administration and not by the Court. Neither any breach of statutory rules nor any mala-fides are pleaded or established.” On such observation, the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the transfer order dated 27.08.2021 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) has been dismissed. 3. Mr. P.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the petitioner is due to retire on 28.02.2022 on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years of age and this very fact is evident from the notice issued by the respondents on 04.08.2021 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). Mr. Pal, learned counsel has put serious emphasis on the memorandum dated 24.08.1993 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) wherefrom a regulating policy evinces. Having considered the relevance of the said memorandum dated 24.08.1993 in the present context, the entire text of the said memorandum is reproduced hereunder: “GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA APPOINTMENT & SERVICES DEPARTMENT No. F.2(20)-GA/93: AGARTALA, AUGUST 24, 1993 MEMORANDUM 1. The undersigned is directed state that as a welfare measure, Government have decided that ordinarily in the last one year of service of a Government employee, the employee shall not be transferred except to a place of his choice. 2. All departments are requested to ensure that this decision is strictly complied with. The undersigned is directed state that as a welfare measure, Government have decided that ordinarily in the last one year of service of a Government employee, the employee shall not be transferred except to a place of his choice. 2. All departments are requested to ensure that this decision is strictly complied with. illegible (R.K. Vaish) Commissioner, Government of Tripura Principal Secretary/ All Commissioners/Secretaries/ Heads of Departments.” By that policy, it has been espoused that as a welfare measure, the government has decided that ordinarily in the last one year of service of the government employee, the employee shall not be transferred except to a place of his choice. The said policy is unequivocal and no authority has been created to make any exception to that policy. 4. Mr. Pal, learned counsel has further submitted that the said policy equally applies to the persons who are deputed in the Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (TSECL) by virtue of the order dated 28.12.2004, where it has been provided that all employees of the Power department have deputed to the Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (TSECL) without any deputation allowances. Service conditions of these employees shall continue to be governed by rules and regulations by which they were governed as on December 31, 2004. The said policy came into effect before 31.12.2004. Therefore, the said policy is applicable on the services of the petitioner. The impugned transfer order (Annexure-2) was issued on 27.08.2021. The petitioner would retire even before one year from the date of the said order of transfer. As such, it is apparent that the petitioner, is eligible for the benefit of that policy as provided by the memorandum dated 24.08.1993. The transferring authority, therefore, ought not have transferred the petitioner. That apart, the petitioner made a representation to the Managing Director, TSECL on 02.09.2021 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) where he had categorically stated the fact of his retirement within seven months from the date of issuance of the said transfer order. The transferring authority, therefore, ought not have transferred the petitioner. That apart, the petitioner made a representation to the Managing Director, TSECL on 02.09.2021 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) where he had categorically stated the fact of his retirement within seven months from the date of issuance of the said transfer order. Further, he has asserted as follows: “Besides above, in the month of February, 2013 while on duty in Rukhia Gas Thermal Project Control Room I suffered a heart attack and thereafter remained bed ridden for a pro-long period and ultimately had to receive treatment in the Rabindranath Tagore Institute of Cardiac Sciences (RTIICS), Kolkata where PTCA with stenting to Right Coronary Artery (RCA) and Left Anterior Descending Artery (LAD) was done on 27.04.2013.” 5. Be that as it may, nothing yielded on the said representation and being persuaded by the emerged circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking interference in the order of transfer and for direction to allow him continue the rest part of his service in the same station from where he has been transferred. 6. Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel who is representing the transferring authority has submitted that the judgment of the learned single Judge cannot be faulted with. However, if this Court is inclined to pass any order in terms of the judgment dated 19.09.2019 delivered in W.P. (C) No. 1044 of 2019 in Sri. Sentu Kumar Paul vs. State of Tripura and Others (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), this Court may pass such order and the transferring authority would review the transfer order considering all relevant circumstances. 7. Having situated thus, we would hold that the observation of the learned single Judge cannot generally be faulted with but the learned single Judge has not considered a relevant aspect that ought to have been considered while passing the impugned order viz. the memorandum dated 24.08.1993. We realise that the said memorandum dated 24.08.1993 is not only a policy measure but is a welfare measure to give benefit of being stationed at home area for preparing for the retirement on superannuation. The law is well settled. Such policies can be deviated from in extreme necessities in the public interest but the impugned order of transfer is a single transfer order. It only says in the interest of the works of the corporation, the said transfer order has been made. 8. The law is well settled. Such policies can be deviated from in extreme necessities in the public interest but the impugned order of transfer is a single transfer order. It only says in the interest of the works of the corporation, the said transfer order has been made. 8. True it is that the petitioner is holding the managerial position and cannot be treated as a lowly paid employee but age and its effects do take equal toll on everyone irrespective of the position they hold. Even in the memorandum dated 24.08.1993 no differentiation has been made. It is a general regulatory measure. As stated, the said memorandum dated 14.08.1993 applies in the services of the petitioner. The transferring authority ought to have considered the said memorandum before transferring him. Apart that, the nature of illness, the petitioner has depicted in his representation should have been attended to with sensitivity. Essence of compassion cannot be determined by law, it should flow from the employers’ broader sensibility. In this case, we are constrained to observe that such approach is completely conspicuous by absence in this case. In such circumstances, we hold the impugned transfer order unsustainable and as consequence thereof, the same is set aside. 9. The petitioner shall be allowed to continue in the same station from where he has been transferred to till his retirement. We would have sent the matter for consideration of the employer as suggested by Mr. Majumder, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 3 and hence making deviation from the normal principle, we have directed the respondents not to force the petitioner to join the new place of posting and allow him to be in the same station from where he was transferred. 10. In terms of the above, this petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.