Order : (SUDESH BANSAL, J.) 1. With consent of counsel for both parties, writ petition has been heard finally on merits and perused the material available on record. 2. Under challenge is the order of transfer dated 04.02.2025 of petitioner, ASI (GD) from GC-AJM-1, Ajmer to 120-BN, Meghalaya. The representation submitted by the petitioner to revoke/ recall his transfer order has been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 31.03.2025 assigning a single line reason that request of the applicant has not been acceded to by the competent authority being devoid of merits. 3. It has been urged by counsel for petitioner that petitioner during his entire service of 38 years, remained posted in Group Center and for first time in July, 2021, he was given terminal posting at Ajmer, but now when his superannuation is due in the month of June, 2027, i.e., almost after two years, he has been transferred in hilly area. 4. Learned counsel urged that the transfer order of petitioner is in violation of the transfer policy dated 27.09.2022 framed by the respondents. Counsel for petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the preliminary provision of transfer policy i.e. Sub- Clause (A)(c) of Clause 5 i.e. “Summer Chain Transfer”, to which petitioner belongs, and Sub-Clause (vi) of Clause 7 i.e. “Terminal Posting” which reads as under:- “5(A)(c). Cases of those who are due for superannuation by 30 th June of subsequent year of a particular year of SCT, may be administratively allowed to stay till superannuation. 7(vi). Terminal Posting The officers/officials/personnel who are due to retire within 2 years to be reckoned from the cut-off date, may be considered for a terminal posting to his place of preference or to the nearby place/station/region covered by overnight journey by train provided he was not posted there in previous tenure.” 5. Counsel for petitioner has urged that petitioner has undergone a by-pass surgery and at present is undergoing medical treatment, as much as, in the annual medical check-up report dated 16.02.2024, made on the instance of respondents, petitioner has been advised to assign Sedentary Duties. The relevant documents including the annual check-up report have been placed on record as Annexure-6. 6. Counsel for petitioner has urged that petitioner has undergone a by-pass surgery and at present is undergoing medical treatment, as much as, in the annual medical check-up report dated 16.02.2024, made on the instance of respondents, petitioner has been advised to assign Sedentary Duties. The relevant documents including the annual check-up report have been placed on record as Annexure-6. 6. In addition, counsel for petitioner also pointed out that petitioner has already submitted a written application dated 02.12.2024 (Ann-2) that his terminal posting may be extended for a period of one year only, since after one year, he would take voluntary retirement. 7. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, though, has not filed reply to the writ petition, but in his verbal arguments, he submits that petitioner is posted in the State of Rajasthan since 30 years and in furtherance to the impugned transfer, petitioner has already been relieved on 06.04.2025. Counsel for respondent has relied upon the judgment passed in case of Union of India Vs. S.L. Abbas [ (1993) 4 SCC 357 ] and prays to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Having adverted to the rival submissions of counsel for both parties, this Court finds that the superannuation of petitioner is due in the month of June, 2027 i.e. nearly after two years and further petitioner has already submitted a written application dated 02.12.2024, expressing his desire for voluntary retirement after a period of one year. Indisputably, petitioner has underwent to by-pass surgery of heart and under continuous medical treatment. In addition as per the annual medical check up report dated 16.02.2024, petitioner has been advised to assign Sedentary Duties. 9. This Court finds that the ground on which the transfer order was requested to be re-considered, have not been appreciated by the respondents and the representation of petitioner has been rejected in a slipshod manner, without application of mind and without assigning any reasons vide order dated 31.03.2025. 10. That apart, the transfer order itself, prima facie, cannot be said to be passed in adherence to the terms of transfer policy, more particularly, in context to the relevant clauses referred hereinabove. Mere relieving the petitioner, during course of writ petition does not deprive the petitioner to consider his grievance on merits by the Court. 10. That apart, the transfer order itself, prima facie, cannot be said to be passed in adherence to the terms of transfer policy, more particularly, in context to the relevant clauses referred hereinabove. Mere relieving the petitioner, during course of writ petition does not deprive the petitioner to consider his grievance on merits by the Court. Petitioner has been transferred out of State in the hilly area, when his superannuation is not too far and is due nearly just after two years and admittedly, respondents continued him for 30 years in State of Rajasthan. 11. For aforesaid reasons, equity lies in favour of the petitioner, for granting indulgence by this Court, in writ jurisdiction. The ratio of judgment delivered in case of S.L. Abbas (supra), was extended in entirely different set of facts, which may not be slapped on the petitioner, considering the factual matrix of the case in hand. 12. As a result, the writ petition is allowed. The transfer order dated 04.02.2025 qua petitioner and the rejection of his representation vide order dated 31.03.2025 are hereby quashed. Petitioner be allowed to continue at the previous place of posting i.e. GC-AJM-1, Ajmer or at any nearby place in the State of Rajasthan itself for a period of one year, subject to furnishing an undertaking by the petitioner that after completion of one year, he shall opt for the Voluntary Retirement from service. 13. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.