Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand vs Dr. Natwa Hansdak on 14 October, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:31623-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 222 of 2025
---
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Principal Secretary, Higher & Technical Education,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. The Joint Secretary, Higher & Technical Education,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
... ... Appellants
Versus
Dr. Natwa Hansdak, son of Late Pradhan Hansdal, resident of
Burdwan Compound, P.O. & P.S.- Lalpur, District- Ranchi
.... ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Sr.S.C.-I
Mr. Aditya Kumar, A.C. to Sr.S.C.-I
Mr. Abhijeet Anand, A.C. to Sr.S.C.-I
For the Respondent : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
---
Reserved on 07.10.2025 Pronounced on 14.10.2025
Per : 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
2025:JHHC:31623-DB
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. 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
2025:JHHC:31623-DB
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.
2025:JHHC:31623-DB
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
2025:JHHC:31623-DB
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. 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,
2025:JHHC:31623-DB
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. 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
2025:JHHC:31623-DB
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. The
respondent filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1509 of 2021
challenging his transfer order wherein the learned Single Judge found
2025:JHHC:31623-DB
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. We have perused the said judgment
2025:JHHC:31623-DB
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
2025:JHHC:31623-DB
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
2025:JHHC:31623-DB
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. 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.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
October 14, 2025
Ritesh/A.F.R.
