JUDGMENT R. L. Gulati, J. - The petitioner was appointed as a Station Assistant the Allahabad Station of All India Radio for a period of three years. The terms and conditions of his service were embodied in an agreement dated 20th December, 1962 signed on behalf of the Union of India by the Station Director, All India Radio, Allahabad. The term of his employment appears to have been extended later on for a further period of three years. Eventually the tenure of his office was extended upto 25th September, 1989 on which date the petitioner would attain the age of 55 years. In 1968 the petitioner's services were placed at the disposal of the Additional Station Director, All India Radio, Kanpur as Senior Grade Production Assistant, as per order dated 20th Match, 1971, a copy whereof is Annexure 3' to the writ petition. This order was passed with the consent of the petitioner because it is signed by him also. It may be mentioned here that at Kanpur the petitioner was placed in the Commercial Broadcasting Section. Before the expiry of 3 years, at Kanpur the petitioner on 18th December, 1973 informed the 3rd respondent namely, the Additional station Director Commercial Broadcasting Service Kanpur that the term of his employment at Kanpur would expire in the afternoon of 18th December, 1973 and their after service shall stand reverted to the All India Radio Allahabad under the Agreement dated 1st February, 1963 He, therefore, requested to be relieved of his duties at Kanpur on the expiry of his term so as to enable him to resume duty at Allahabad. By a letter of the same date the Assistant Station Inspector, Kanpur informed the petitioner that his request (or transfer to Allahabad was not accepted by the Director General of All India Radio, New Delhi. In spite of this the petitioner alleged that the 3td respondent, namely the Additional Director, Commercial Broadcasting Service, Kanpur ordered the petitioner to hand over the charge to one Mr. Mahendra Kumar in the afternoon of 17th December, 1973 and the petitioner left Kanpur to resume his duty at Allahabad. The petitioner had also reported in the Station Director, Allahabad. The petitioner has alleged that thereafter he made several attempts to resume his duty at Allahabad but he was not permitted to do so. Mahendra Kumar in the afternoon of 17th December, 1973 and the petitioner left Kanpur to resume his duty at Allahabad. The petitioner had also reported in the Station Director, Allahabad. The petitioner has alleged that thereafter he made several attempts to resume his duty at Allahabad but he was not permitted to do so. He is not being paid any salary which virtually means that his services have been terminated The petitioner has now approached this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. Ordinarily an employee of the Central Government is liable to be transferred to any place inside the Territory in accordance with the fundamental rules but it appears that in the case of employees like the petitioner whose service conditions are regulated by contract, they are not liable to be transferred except with their consent. Admittedly the petitioner's first appointment was made at Allahabad fora period of three years. Paragraph 2 of that Agreement no doubt provides that the Staff Artist shall devote his whole time to the services required of him and at all times obey the rules including the conduct rules prescribed for him from time to time shall, whenever required, proceed to any part of India land there render such services as may be assigned to him but in the end it is provided that he with not except in case of accident or sickness certified by competent medical authority absent himself without having first obtained permission in writing from the Assistant Station Director, 'All India Radio, Allahabad. This clause means clearly that the petitioner's place of posting was Allahabad under the Assistant Station Director of that place but occasionally he could be sent out on short assignments to other places in India, but he could not he permanently transferred out of Allahabad except with his consent This is also borne out from the fact that when he was sent to Kanpur for a period of three years his consent was obtained on the order of transfer. When the tenure of his office was extended to 26th September, 1989. The original agreement still continued to be in force. This is clear from the opening paragraph of the endorsement which reads :- "Subject otherwise to the terms and conditions of the articles of the original agreement and subsequent endorsement, it is hereby further declared and agreed that- 1. When the tenure of his office was extended to 26th September, 1989. The original agreement still continued to be in force. This is clear from the opening paragraph of the endorsement which reads :- "Subject otherwise to the terms and conditions of the articles of the original agreement and subsequent endorsement, it is hereby further declared and agreed that- 1. That period of contract specified in clause 1 of the Articles of Agreement and subsequent endorsement shall be upto 25-9-1989 (AN) the date of commencement remaining the same. 2. The period of notice specified in clause 4 (v) of the Articles of agreement and subsequent endorsement, shall be six months " 3. On 31st August, 1973 the petitioner received a memorandum dated 30/31st August, 1973 from the Additional Station Director, Government of India, All India Radio, New Delhi containing stipulation for the retention of the petitioner at Kanpur far a further period of three years on the post of Senior Grade Production Assistant. It was provided in that memorandum that he shall be put on probation for two years and the probation could he extended by one year within the specified period of 3 years. Clause (2) thereof provided that on successful completion of the probation period specified in clause (1) above the term pacified in clause f of the Articles of Agreement shall be deemed to have been amended so as to make the agreement current for a further period upto and including 25-9-1989, subject to the other provision of the said agreement and earlier endorsement attached thereof. Clause (3) of is significant and provided that the said Staff Artist can be transferred to any part of India So an attempt was made for the first time to make the post of the petitioner transferable. In the end Ibis memorandum stated in case the above conditions are acceptable to him, he should sign the endorsement immediately. 4. It is thus clear that the petitioner's service could become transferable only if he signed the memorandum, which meant that his post could be rendered transferable only with his consent. The petitioner refused to sign the memorandum and, as such, he could not be transferred out of Allahabad. "The Staff Artist shall whenever required, proceed to any part of India and there render such services as may be assigned to him" 5. The petitioner refused to sign the memorandum and, as such, he could not be transferred out of Allahabad. "The Staff Artist shall whenever required, proceed to any part of India and there render such services as may be assigned to him" 5. I have already shown that this particular clause does not make the post transferable It only provides for short term assignments outside Allahabad. Had it not been so, there was necessity for incorporating a term with regard to the transfer in the Memorandum of 30/31st August, 1973. (Annexure 4' to the writ petition). This being the position, the respondents do not appear to be justified in forcing the petitioner to remain outside Allahabad after the initial period of three years for which he had given his consent The petitioner his alleged that he is not being paid his salary nor he is being allowed to resume work at Allahabad with the result that virtually his services have been terminated He has also stated that the post of the petitioner at Allahabad is still in existence and his juniors are still working. In other words the petitioner his complained of contravention of Article 311 and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 6. The first question that arises is as to whether the petitioner can be said to be a Government servant holding a civil post of purposes of Articles 311 and 16 of the Constitution. This question is no longer open to controversy in view of my judgment in Civil Misc. Writ No. 2282 of 1971 decided on 12-7-1974 that was also a case of Staff Artist in the All India Radio. His services were regulated from time to time under a contract. His services were terminated and the petitioner complained of violation of Articles 311 (3) and 16 of the Constitution, lit that case, I have held that notwithstanding the fact tint the services of Staff Artists in All India Radio are being regulated under a contract, such employees are Government servants holding civil post tor the purposes of the aforesaid two Articles of the constitution. For the reasons stated in that judgment I hold that the petitioner is also a Government servant holding a civil post and is entitled to the protection of Articles 311 (2) as also of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution No doubt no format order terminating the petitioner's services has been passed but in reality the petitioner has been deprived of his post because he is not being allowed to join nor he is being paid any salary. The allegation that his juniors are still working has also not been denied and as such, the protection guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is being dented to him. 7. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as still in service and to pay him emolument to which he is entitled. They are further directed not to implement any order passed in connection with the petitioner's transfer out of Allahabad. The petitioner is entitled to the cost.