JUDGMENT : SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. The petitioner has assailed the order of transfer dated 27.12.2020 whereby the petitioner was transferred from Jaipur to District Collectorate, Dausa. 2. Learned counsel submits that the order was in violation of the Rajasthan Travelling Allowance Rules as it does not mention that the transfer is on account of administrative exigencies which is necessary before passing of the order. Learned counsel further submits that no TA/DA was authorized under the order dated 27.12.2020 and therefore, the order was illegal and unjustified. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a stay order was passed by the Tribunal staying the operation of order dated 27.12.2020, however, later on as the respondent/s have issued an order releasing TA/DA, the Tribunal has proceeded to dismiss the appeal. Aggrieved of order dated 09.04.2021, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal cannot act in a manner to support the Government by directing the Government to fill up the low post as held by this Court in SBCWP No. 20517/2019: Nihal Singh v. Director, Secondary Education decided on 15.12.2020. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the correction was made after filing of the appeal and granting of stay which could not have been done by the Government. 6. I have considered the submissions. 7. The Tribunal has noticed that merely non mentioning of the word “that the transfer order has been\passed for administrative exigencies or for public purposes”, would not in any manner make the order illegal. It also noticed that subsequently the Government has passed an order releasing the TA/DA and therefore the appeal was rejected. 8. This court is of the firm view that the State Government has always inherent power to correct its earlier orders if it reaches to the conclusion that the earlier order was incorrect or wrongfully passed. Merely non mentioning of the words “that the transfer is on account of the administrative reasons or for public purposes”, would not render a transfer order as illegal. The order may be irregular. There is a difference between irregularity and illegality goes to the root of the matter and the order has to be quashed. 9. Merely non mentioning of the words “that the transfer is on account of the administrative reasons or for public purposes”, would not render a transfer order as illegal. The order may be irregular. There is a difference between irregularity and illegality goes to the root of the matter and the order has to be quashed. 9. In view of the above, taking into consideration that the State Government has corrected its mistake and issued the orders of releasing TA/DA of the transferred persons, the contention of the petitioner is found to be without basis. 10. The next contention of the petitioner with regard to power not being available with the State Government after stay was granted by the Tribunal, is also found to be without basis. Once the Tribunal passes an order of staying the operation of an impugned order and the Government realizes its mistake, it can always correct its orders so that the litigation can be ended. Such an approach of the Government on the other hand is required to be appreciated as litigation would be lessened once the Government realizes that the order passed by Department is illegal. Moreso when a stay has been granted by the Tribunal. 11. In view of the above, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.