WP(C) 3701/2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Heard Mr. H.K.Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.Saikia, lear ned Standing Counsel, Health. None has appeared on behalf of Respondent No.5 ins pite of due service of notice. At the relevant point of time the petitioner was working as a lady Healt h Visitor under the Additional Chief Medical and Health Officer (FW), Bongaigaon . The petitioner submitted a representation for her transfer to any health Centr e in Kamurp District on the ground that her mother-in-law aged about 82 years is residing at Uparhali in Kamrup District and she is suffering from old age ailme nt and is without proper care. On consideration of the said representation, by a n order dated 5.6.2006 passed by the Director of Health Services(FW), the petiti oner was transferred from Bongaigoan to Uparhali PHC under the Joint Director of Health Services, Kamrup. The Respondent No. 5 who was working in Uparhali PHC w as transferred to Bongaigon in place of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said or der dated 5.6.2006, the petitioner joined in the Uparhali PHC. Thereafter, by a subsequent order dated 6.7.2006 the transfer of the petitioner and the Responden t No. 5 made by the order dated 5.6.2006 was cancelled. Aggrieved, this writ pet ition has been filed. The affidavit filed by the Director of Health Services ( FW) on 4.12.200 6 does not spell out the reasons for the cancellation made by the impugned order dated 6.7.2006. In fact, in the said affidavit, apart from the statement that t he transfer made by the order dated 5.6.2006 was reconsidered at the highest lev el and thereafter the order-dated 6.7.2006 was passed, there is no further expla nation forthcoming. In such circumstances, the Court had required the learned St anding Counsel, Health, to place before the Court the records in original showin g the reasons for the impugned cancellation made by the order dated 6.7.2006. The records relevant to the case have been placed before the Court . A c onsideration of the said records does not reveal that the cancellation made by t he order dated 6.7.2006 was prompted by the needs of administration or any othe r good and sufficient reason. In fact, the learned Standing Counsel, Health, has fairly submitted that the impugned cancellation is not reflected by the records to be in exigencies of the administration. In the above view of the matter there will be little hesitation on the p art of the Court to interfere with the impugned order dated 6.7.2006 and allow t he writ petition. It is ordered accordingly. It is stated by Shri H.K.Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner that salary of the petitioner is outstanding since the month of June, 2006. If that be so, the authority, on due verification, will pass orders enabling the petitioner to receive her due salary. This will dispose of the writ petition.