D.G.R. Patnaik, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondent -State. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay him his salary which has been withheld for the period 5.12.2005 to 9.10.2006. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ application vide W.P. (S) No. 1360 of 2006 for a direction to the respondents to accept his joining at Chakulia Sub -Division with effect from 10.12.2005 and to pay him the arrears of salary. The writ application was disposed of by order dated 13.6.2006 with a direction to the concerned authorities of the respondents to serve a copy of the relieving order. If the same was issued by the concerned authorities prior to 10.12.2005 i.e. the date on which the petitioner has claimed to have submitted his joining at transferred post at Chakulia. A further observation was made in the order that if any adverse decision is taken against the petitioner the authorities concerned shall communicate the grounds to the petitioner.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits by referring to a copy of his joining letter (Annexure -3) that in compliance with the order of his transfer, the petitioner had submitted his joining at his transferred post at Chakulia. Inspite of the joining letter the petitioner was not allowed to work and neither to sign on the attendance register, only on the plea that the petitioner had not produced his relieving order from his previous place of posting. The petitioner thereafter filed his representation (Annexure -9) before the concerned higher authorities of the respondents and in response, he was informed by letter dated 28.7.2006 (Annexure -7) that the relieving order purportedly passed on 23.12.2005. was annexed with the letter. However, to the petitioner's surprise, no such enclosure was found along with the letter and the petitioner thereafter promptly informed the concerned authorities about absence of the enclosures to the letter. However, even in absence of the relieving order but on the basis of the order of transfer and the communication forwarded to the petitioner by the Executive Engineer vide letter dated 28.7.2006. The petitioner was allowed to join his duties at Chakulia on and from 10.10.2006. Learned Counsel submits that the petitioner has apparently been victimized and though he had offered himself for performing his duties at the place of his transfer but he was deliberately kept off and no work was offered to him. Such mala fide action appears to have been taken only on account of the grudge and malice maintained by the respondents on account of the writ application which the petitioner had filed before this Court. Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, while inviting attention to the statements contained in the several paragraphs of the counter -affidavit, would want to argue that the petitioner was transferred from Noamundi to Chakulia by order dated 25.11.2005. However the order of relieving from his post was not promptly issued and it was eventually passed on 23.12.2005. Only on the basis of the transfer order and without receiving the relieving order, the petitioner appeared before the concerned authorities of Chakulia on 10.12.2005 submitting his joining and the same was rightly rejecteu since the petitioner did not produce the relieving order. Learned Counsel explains further that despite being relieved on 23.12.2005 and a copy of the order being dispatched to him, the petitioner thereafter did not present himself for joining at his transferred post at Chakulia and continued evading his joining for about one year and ultimately submitted his joining in October, 2006. Since the petitioner did not work for the period between 25.11.2005 to 22.12.2006, he did not deserve any salary on the principle of 'no work no pay'.
(3.) FROM the rival submissions as it appears, the petitioner was though transferred from Noamundi to Chakulia by order dated 25.11.2005, he was not promptly served with his relieving order from his place of posting. As it appears, upon receiving the order of his transfer, the petitioner promptly proceeded to join his post at the transferred place, but he was not allowed to join.;