JUDGMENT : Rajesh Shankar, J. : The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 22.10.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4453 of 2024 which has been disposed of directing the writ petitioner/respondent to file a fresh representation before the respondent nos. 2 and 3 of the said case (appellant nos. 2 and 3 herein) and the appellant no. 3 - the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher & Technical Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi has been directed to consider the said representation and to pass order for payment of salary to the writ petitioner/respondent for the period from 01.04.2021 to 18.02.2022 (total 324 days). 2. The factual background of the case is that the respondent was initially appointed to the post of Lecturer in the year 1987. He, while working on the post of Technical Officer at Jharkhand Council On Science, Technology & Innovation (JCSTI), Ranchi, was transferred to the Government Polytechnic, Adityapur as Lecturer vide notification as contained in memo no. 352 dated 12.03.2021 and by the same notification, one Rewati Raman Upadhyay (12 years junior to the respondent) posted as Lecturer (Metallurgy) in Government Polytechnic, Dhanbad, was transferred to the Government Polytechnic, Adityapur on the same post with additional charge of the Principal of the said institution. Pursuant to the said notification, the respondent did not join the said post and he filed representation dated 15.03.2021 raising objection against his transfer order. 3. The respondent subsequently filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1509 of 2021 assailing his transfer order which was disposed of vide order dated 29.11.2021 directing the appellants to take decision on the respondent’s representation dated 15.03.2021 with respect to the order of his transfer as well as payment of salary for the period he remained absent. 4. In the light of the order dated 29.11.2021 passed in the aforesaid writ petition and considering the respondent’s representation dated 15.03.2021, his earlier transfer notification was superseded vide subsequent notification no. 185 dated 17.02.2022 and he was transferred to Rajkiya Mahila Polytechnic, Ranchi as In-charge Principal from where he superannuated on 31.01.2023. 5. 4. In the light of the order dated 29.11.2021 passed in the aforesaid writ petition and considering the respondent’s representation dated 15.03.2021, his earlier transfer notification was superseded vide subsequent notification no. 185 dated 17.02.2022 and he was transferred to Rajkiya Mahila Polytechnic, Ranchi as In-charge Principal from where he superannuated on 31.01.2023. 5. Thereafter, a reasoned order as contained in memo No. 854 dated 28.08.2023 was issued under the signature of the Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Government of Jharkhand whereby it was decided that the period of absence from duty pertaining to the respondent i.e. from 01.04.2021 to 18.02.2022 (total 324 days) would be treated as extraordinary leave and he would not be paid salary for the said period on the principle of ‘No Work No Pay’. 6. Being aggrieved with the reasoned order dated 28.08.2023, the respondent filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4453 of 2024 seeking direction to the appellants to make payment of salary for the said period of absence from duty with all consequential benefits. The said writ petition was disposed of vide impugned order dated 22.10.2024 directing the respondent to file fresh representation and the same was directed to be decided by the appellant no. 3 in accordance with law. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the guidelines have been issued by the State Government vide departmental resolution No. 2001 dated 13.08.2015 regulating the transfer/posting of Lecturers working in the Engineering Colleges/Polytechnic Institutes functioning under the control of the Department of Higher & Technical Education, Government of Jharkhand. Clause 11 of the resolution clearly states that with respect to the transfer/posting done by the government, the concerned employee is foremost required to give his/her joining in the newly transferred place and only thereafter, he/she can raise his/her objection against the transfer/posting order before the concerned authority. If the employee fails to give joining at the newly transferred place within the prescribed time, it shall be considered as serious misconduct for which the concerned employee shall be liable to face disciplinary proceeding. 8. It is further submitted that in terms with the aforesaid guideline/resolution, the respondent was required to give his joining at the transferred place, however without giving his joining, he chose to file writ petition seeking redressal of his grievance. 9. 8. It is further submitted that in terms with the aforesaid guideline/resolution, the respondent was required to give his joining at the transferred place, however without giving his joining, he chose to file writ petition seeking redressal of his grievance. 9. It is also submitted that a period of 324 days during which the respondent remained absent from duty was treated as extraordinary leave to save him from ‘break in service’ which could have affected his payment of pension and other retiral benefits. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the principle of 'No Work, No Pay' applies in the present case and the respondent is not entitled for salary for the period he did not work. The principle of "No Work, No Pay" is not arbitrary, rather is essential to ensure discipline and accountability in government service. The decision of the appellants to deny payment of salary for the period of 324 days to the respondent was in accordance with law. 11. It is also submitted that no one can be permitted to claim wages for the period he remained absent from duty without sanctioned leave. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent was transferred to the Government Polytechnic, Adityapur where a person 12 years junior to him, was posted as the In-Charge Principal and for the said reason, the respondent was not in a position to join there. 13. It is further contended that the appellants were responsible for not taking work from the respondent and as such, they cannot take benefit of the principle of “No Work, No Pay”. 14. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly directed the appellant no. 3 to consider the claim of the respondent regarding payment of salary for the period from 01.04.2021 to 18.02.2022 (total 324 days) with all consequential benefits and the same needs no interference of this Court. 15. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 16. The short question falls for consideration of this Court is as to whether the respondent is entitled for salary with all consequential benefits for the period from 01.04.2021 to 18.02.2022 during which he was absent from duty due to his non-joining the transferred place where a person 12 years junior to him was made as the In-charge Principal. 17. 16. The short question falls for consideration of this Court is as to whether the respondent is entitled for salary with all consequential benefits for the period from 01.04.2021 to 18.02.2022 during which he was absent from duty due to his non-joining the transferred place where a person 12 years junior to him was made as the In-charge Principal. 17. Thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the appellants is that while passing the order dated 29.11.2021 in W.P.(S) No. 1509 of 2021, the learned Single Judge had clearly held that the respondent was not entitled to claim any salary for the period he remained absent and thus the subsequent writ petition seeking same relief should not have been entertained. 18. We have gone through the order dated 29.11.2021 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1509 of 2021, paragraph no.-7 of which is reproduced hereinbelow: - “7. Be that as it may, having gone through rival submission of the parties across the bar, this Court is of the considered view that admittedly transfer is an incidence of service and no person can be allowed to continue at a particular place. In the instant case, petitioner was transferred within a period of one year on the ground that on the earlier posting he was found to be guilty of misconduct. But surprisingly, till date no departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner, not even the chargesheet has been issued. If petitioner is found guilty of misconduct, it was open to the respondents to initiate proceeding against the petitioner and pass order of punishment for the same if he would have been found guilty of the charges. Contention of the respondents that earlier he was found guilty of misconduct, is not acceptable to this Court. On the other hand it also cannot be left open and it cannot be on the sweet will of the petitioner to disobey the administrative order and continue filing writ petition. As per Rules, petitioner was to represent before the authorities and the authorities were to pass order. Petitioner having failed to do so, cannot claim any salary for the period he remained absent. However, since petitioner has been transferred to a place where person 12 years junior to him has been made in-charge, same cannot be permitted by this Court.” 19. Petitioner having failed to do so, cannot claim any salary for the period he remained absent. However, since petitioner has been transferred to a place where person 12 years junior to him has been made in-charge, same cannot be permitted by this Court.” 19. Though, learned Single Judge in the last part of paragraph-7 has recorded that as per Rules, the respondent was to represent the authorities and the authorities were to pass order, but since the respondent failed to do so, he could not claim any salary for the period he remained absent. It has however been finally held that since the petitioner was transferred to a place where a person 12 years junior to him was made the In-charge Principal, the same cannot be permitted by the Court. Having observed so, the learned Single Judge has directed the appellants to take decision on the respondent’s representation regarding transfer as well as salary for the period not paid to him. 20. It would thus transpire from the observation made in the aforesaid paragraph that the learned Single Judge has firstly described the position under the Rules and thereafter in the last part of said paragraph, has mentioned the word ‘however’ which clearly reflects that the learned Single Judge has finally held that the transfer of the respondent to the place where a person 12 years junior to him was made in-charge Principal, cannot be permitted. The impugned order dated 22.10.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4453 of 2024 has also been authored by the same learned Judge who had passed the order dated 29.11.2021 in W.P.(S) No. 1509 of 2021 and by interpreting the same, has observed that the respondent had rightly claimed salary for the period during which he remained out of service. 21. Thus, we do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that the claim of the respondent with respect to payment of his salary for the period he remained absent from duty was at all rejected vide order dated 29.11.2021 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1509 of 2021. 22. It is not in dispute that vide notification dated 12.03.2021, the respondent was transferred to a place where a person 12 years junior to him was also transferred giving additional charge of the Principal and for the said reason, the respondent did not join there. 22. It is not in dispute that vide notification dated 12.03.2021, the respondent was transferred to a place where a person 12 years junior to him was also transferred giving additional charge of the Principal and for the said reason, the respondent did not join there. The respondent filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1509 of 2021 challenging his transfer order wherein the learned Single Judge found that the order of transfer of the respondent was not in accordance with law and as such direction was given to the appellants to take a decision on the respondent’s representation dated 15.03.2021. The said order of the learned Single Judge attained finality as the same was not challenged by the appellants before any superior court. Moreover, in the light of the said order and upon consideration of the respondent’s representation dated 15.03.2021, the appellants issued another notification dated 17.02.2022 in suppression of the earlier notification whereby he was transferred to the post of In-Charge Principal, Rajkiya Mahila Polytechnic, Ranchi from where he superannuated on 31.01.2023. Despite that, the respondent, immediately was denied salary for the period from 01.04.2021 to 18.02.2022 (total 324 days) during which he remained absent from duty on the principle of “No Work, No Pay”. 23. We are of the view that since the respondent was transferred to the place where a person 12 years junior to him was made In- charge Principal without any cogent and justifiable reason, he had good ground for not joining the said post. The respondent was kept out of service not due to his fault, rather it was the fault of the appellants themselves for which the respondent cannot be penalized. The respondent, immediately after his first transfer order had raised objection by filing a representation before the appellant no. 3 however, no action was taken on the same. 24. Learned counsel for the appellants in support of his submission has put reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.C Saxena Vs. Union of India & Others reported in (2006) 9 SCC 583 . 3 however, no action was taken on the same. 24. Learned counsel for the appellants in support of his submission has put reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.C Saxena Vs. Union of India & Others reported in (2006) 9 SCC 583 . We have perused the said judgment wherein the appellant of the said case had not joined the transferred post on the ground of illness and in the said factual backdrop, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that a government servant should have first obeyed the transfer order by reporting at the place of posting and then should have proceeded to a court of law to ventilate his grievances. It was his duty to first report for the work where he was transferred and then to file representation as to what might be his personal problem. This tendency of not reporting at the place of posting and indulging in litigation needed to be curbed. 25. The facts and circumstances of the present case is entirely different from the case relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants. In the present case, since the respondent was forced to work under a person 12 years junior to him, he had justifiable reason for not joining the said post. He had also raised his objection immediately after his transfer order was issued which shows his bonafide. Thus, the judgment relied upon by the appellants is not applicable in the case in hand. 26. Learned counsel for the appellants would also contend that the period of absence from duty pertaining to the respondent was treated as an extraordinary leave and in view of ‘rule 180’ of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 (in short, “the Code, 2001”), he was not entitled to the leave-salary for such period. 27. To appreciate the said contention of learned counsel for the appellants, we have gone through ‘rule 180’ of the Code, 2001 which is quoted hereinbelow: - “Rule 180. (a) In special circumstances and when no other leave is under these rules admissible, extraordinary leave may be granted. Such leave is not debited against the leave account. No leave-salary is admissible during such leave. (b) The authority empowered to sanction leave may grant extraordinary leave in combination with, or in continuation of, any leave that is admissible, and may commute retrospectively period of absence without leave into extraordinary leave. Such leave is not debited against the leave account. No leave-salary is admissible during such leave. (b) The authority empowered to sanction leave may grant extraordinary leave in combination with, or in continuation of, any leave that is admissible, and may commute retrospectively period of absence without leave into extraordinary leave. Note 1-The State Government may for special reasons dispense with the condition that extraordinary leave may be granted only when no other leave is by rule admissible, provided that a Government servant cannot be compelled to take extraordinary leave when leave with allowances is admissible to him. Note 2- The power of commuting period of absence without leave into extraordinary leave under sub- rule(b) is absolute; in other words, such commutation is permissible even when other leave was admissible to Government servant at the time his absence without leave commenced.” 28. Further, ‘rule 236’ of the Code, 2001 provides that extraordinary leave may be granted to a Government Servant in special circumstances when no other leave is admissible or when other leave being admissible, the concerned government servant applies in writing for grant of extraordinary leave. Sub-rule (e) of rule 248 of the Code, 2001 provides that a government servant on extraordinary leave is not entitled to any leave-salary. 29. On the conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is explicitly clear that extraordinary leave is granted under special circumstances if no other leave is admissible to a government servant or if the government servant himself applies for the same. However, in case, government servant is absent from service without any sanctioned leave, the authority is empowered to commute his period of absence into extraordinary leave and such commutation is permissible even when other leave is admissible to the Government servant. 30. Thus, the power under sub-rule (b) of ‘rule 180’ read with Note 2 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 could have been exercised by the appellants only when the respondent was at fault in not joining the duty. 30. Thus, the power under sub-rule (b) of ‘rule 180’ read with Note 2 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 could have been exercised by the appellants only when the respondent was at fault in not joining the duty. In the present case, once it was found in the judicial adjudication that the respondent was absent from duty due to the fault of the appellants, his period of absence from duty could not have been commuted to extraordinary leave by the appellants in exercise of power under ‘rule 180’ of the Code, 2001, rather he should have been treated on duty so as to give him salary with other consequential benefits for the said period. 31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 22.10.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4453 of 2024. 32. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 33. The pending application(s), if any, also stands closed.