- (1.) THE present petition has been preferred by the petitioner for getting salary for his absenteeism period running from 1st May, 2009 to 20th January, 2001.
(2.) IT is alleged by learned counsel for the petitioner that initially, the petitioner was working on the post "X  and, thereafter, he was transferred to the post "Y , but, he had not joined the post "Y  on the ground of sickness, which continued for much longer period, as stated hereinabove. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon some recommendation for payment of salary, made by the high ranking police officer for the aforesaid period, which is at Annexure3 to the memo of the petition and, therefore, it is submitted that on the basis of Annexure3, salary has to be paid to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that a detailed speaking order dated 6th March, 2010 has been passed by the respondents' authorized officer, which is at AnnexureA to the counter affidavit and as per this order, the petitioner has not been paid salary for the aforesaid period mainly for the reason that after transfer of the petitioner, he has never resumed the duties at the post "Y . The so called ground of sickness is not accepted by the respondents. The petitioner was never admitted in any hospital as an indoor patient nor any certificate was submitted by the petitioner at the relevant time. For old sickness, new certificate has been given, which has been observed in the impugned order at AnnexureA to the counter affidavit. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that it has become fashion in the police division that whenever they are transferred, they are not resuming the duties, immediately, for one or other reasons. They are trying their lot to get the suitable posting and if they miserably failed in attempt, thereafter only, they are joining the transferred post, therefore, normally some times transfer takes few days, some times it takes few weeks and some times it takes few months period, therefore, for the period of absenteeism, medical certificate will come for so called sickness and this case is not exception to such type of tendency of the police personnel and, therefore, as the petitioner has not resumed the duties after his transfer for much longer period, he has not been paid salary on the principle of "No Work, No Salary  and, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) The present petitioner was working in the police on the post "X , thereafter, he was transferred to the post "Y . This transfer order has to be followed by the police personnel, being an employee of the disciplined force. The petitioner was transferred on 1st May, 1999, but, he had not resumed the duties on the post "Y  till 20th January, 2001. (ii) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that because of sickness, the petitioner had not resumed the duties on the post, where he was transferred. Initially, the certificates were given to the respondents for so called sickness of the petitioner, but, the respondents have not accepted the same. This contention of the petitioner is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that learned counsel for the petitioner has miserably failed in pointing out to this Court from any of the annexures that for the so called sickness for the period running from 1st May, 1999 to 320th January, 2001, the petitioner was sick and the sickness certificates, given by the Medical Officer, were given to the respondents' officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Annexure5, medical certificate. Looking to this medical certificate, learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out whether the petitioner was indoor patient or not. Even, the petitioner was not admitted in any hospital for twenty months long sickness. Thus, the petitioner was treated as an outdoor patient for the so called sickness. Moreover, looking to the order passed by the respondents dated 6th March, 2010, which is at AnnexureA to the counter affidavit, it appears that the petitioner had never submitted his sickness certificate to the respondents for the aforesaid twenty months long period sickness. Recently, some certificates were given by the petitioner, as per the order passed by the respondents. Thus, for old sickness, new certificates were given by the petitioner, when the matter was inquired into by the respondents. (iii) It appears that tendency has been developed in the employees, upon their transfer that whenever the Government transfers the Government employees, always they are running from pillar to post to get the desired posting, without joining the post at which they are transferred. This running from pillar to post, some times take few days, some times it takes few weeks and some times it takes few months time and if they are unable to get the suitable posting, thereafter only, they are joining the post, where they are transferred, but, obvious will be the absenteeism, which is always unauthorized and to get the salary for the absenteeism period, sickness is the only ground, which this type of employee can agitate. This case appears to be no exception to the general tendency, as stated hereinabove. The so called sickness of the petitioner is not accepted by this Court and rightly, it has been brushed aside by the respondents by passing speaking order dated 6th March, 2010, which is annexed at AnnexureA to the counter affidavit, filed by the respondents. The petitioner was never admitted in any hospital for twenty months long period sickness nor the certificates were given at the relevant time to the respondents by the petitioner. It has been observed in the order at AnnexureA to the counter affidavit that recently the sickness certificates have been given by the petitioner. In these set of circumstances, for the period of absenteeism from 1st May, 1999 to 20th January, 2001, it has been rightly decided by the respondents for not paying salary to the petitioner on the principle of "No Work, No Salary .;