WP(C) 6768/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY In challenge is the order dated 11.10.2010 of the Commissioner, Panchaya t & Rural Development, Assam, transferring the petitioner from Lahowal Developme nt Block under District Rural Development Agency, Dibrugarh to Tinkhong Developm ent Block under the same agency against a vacant post. I have heard Mr. D. Sharmah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned State Counsel for the official respondents. The pleaded case of the petitioner, in short, is that while in service a s UDA (Acct.) and posted at Itakhuli Development Block, in the year 2007, he suf fered heart attack due to high blood pressure and had to be hospitalized. As, in and around the same time he was sought to be transferred to Khowang Developme nt Block, he represented against the same and on a consideration of his health c ondition, the order was modified and he was posted at Lahowal. The petitioner h as averred that his condition has not improved and has to remain under constant medical supervision. Being aggrieved by the sudden turn of events signalled by the impugned o rder of transfer, his wife, meanwhile has submitted a representation on 13.11.20 10 before the Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development, Department, Govt. of Assam. According to the petitioner, the representation remains undisposed, as o n date. He seeks to contend as well that he has not formally handed over the cha rge of the office that he held at Lahowal to his reliever, Respondent No.5. Whereas, Mr. Sharmah, has urged that having regard to the persistent ill health of the petitioner and in particular, the impugned order of transfer is a rbitrary, unreasonable and unjust, Mr. Ghosh, has maintained that transfer being a condition of service, the Respondents having identified the place of his post ing on an assessment of the attendant facts and circumstances, no interference o f this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review ought to be made. Noticeably, the only ground, on which the impugned order of transfer has been challenged, is the petitioner’s ailment. Mr. Sharmah, also has urged arbi trariness contending that till date, a copy of the order of transfer has not bee n served on the petitioner officially. Even assuming that the State respondents on a consideration of the physical state of the petitioner at an earlier occasi on in the year, 2007 had accommodated him at Lahowal on his representation. His impugnment on the said ground, as on today, per se is not decisive. Nevertheless, the State being a model employer, it is expected of it to adopt a compassionate and lenient approach in matters pertaining to its employee s. This Court refrains from making any further observation in this matter being mindful of the constricted scope of interference by it with an order of transfe r. It is therefore, considered appropriate to close this proceeding with a direction to the aforementioned State authority to take a considered decision on the representation submitted on behalf of the petitioner against the impugned o rder of transfer. Needless to say, while dealing with the said representation, the aforementioned authority amongst others, would bear in mind the background, in which he had been retained at Lahowal. Ordered accordingly. No costs.