ORDER K. N. Singh, J. - This petition is directed against an order of the Prescribed Authority, Gorakhpur, dated 23-10-1971 under the Payment of Wages Act, holding that it had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute before it. 2. Jamiat Ram Khatnani, respondent No. 1 was in the employment of the North Eastern Railway. He was officiating on the post of Assistant Personnel Inspector and posted at Katihar. By an order dated March 7, 1960, he was reverted to his substantive post of clerk and thereafter he was transferred to Fatehgarh. He challenged the order of reversion in Writ Petition before this Court. The petition was allowed and the order of reversion was quashed. In special appeal the judgment of the learned Single Judge was upheld by an order of this Court dated 7-11-1968. Meanwhile the petitioner did not join his office at Fatehgarh, instead he participated in the railway strike and in that connection he was arrested and placed under suspension. While under suspension he requested the District Engineer, Fatehgarh, for payment of his suspension allowance. The request was refused, but subsequently after the order of the reversion was quashed by this Court the railway authorities cancelled the reversion order dated November 12, 1969 as well as the transfer order dated November, 17/18, 1969 and sanctioned him leave for the period between 18-3-1960 to 11-7-1960 and directed that the payment of the salary be made to him. In pursuance of that order the respondent drew, his salary from the District Engineer, Fatehgarh, in the first week of April, 1960. Later on he filed an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act before the Prescribed Authority, Gorakhpur, for the payment of his wages for the period between 12-7-1960 to 31-3-1965. There is some dispute about the period for which the respondent is claiming wages, but it is not necessary to decide that question in the present proceedings. Suffice it to say that the respondent No. 1 made application for the payment of wages before the Prescribed Authority at Gorakhpur. 3. The General Manager, N. E. Railway and other Railway authorities who were respondents to the application questioned the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority, Gorakhpur to entertain the respondents application. Suffice it to say that the respondent No. 1 made application for the payment of wages before the Prescribed Authority at Gorakhpur. 3. The General Manager, N. E. Railway and other Railway authorities who were respondents to the application questioned the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority, Gorakhpur to entertain the respondents application. According to them the applicant had never been posted at Gorakhpur nor he was paid his salary at Gorakhpur hence the Prescribed Authority, Gorakhpur had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The Prescribed Authority by the impugned order dated 23-10-1971 held that since the respondent No. 1 was arrested at Gorakhpur, served with a charge-sheet and was paid salary at Gorakhpur, he was in employment at Gorakhpur during the relevant period therefore it had jurisdiction to decide the dispute. Aggrieved the General Manager and other railway authorities of the North Eastern Railway have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the legality of the order of the Prescribed Authority. 4. Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act is in the following words: - "15. (1) The State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint any Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation or other officer with experience as a Judge of a Civil Court or as a stipendiary Magistrate to be the authority to hear and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of deductions from the wages, or delay in payment of the wages of persons employed or paid in that area. .........." The above section lays down that the authority to hear and decide all claims arising out of deduction from wages or delay in payment of wages will have jurisdiction in respect of those persons who are employed or paid in that area viz., the area for which the Prescribed Authority is appointed by means of notification issued by the State Government. The Prescribed Authority appointed at Gorakhpur has jurisdiction to hear and decide claims in respect of payment of wages of only those Railway servants who are employed and paid within the area of Gorakhpur Any employee posted outside Gorakhpur or who may have been paid his salary outside Gorakhpur, must make application in respect of his claim arising out of deduction from Wages or delay in payment of wages before the prescribed Authority of the area concerned. The Prescribed Authority at Gorakhpur will have no jurisdiction to entertain any claim of deduction from wages or delay in payment of wages of any railway employee employed or paid outside Gorakhpur. 5. In AIR 1956 Punj 238, Pyare Singh Bhagwan Singh v. Union of India, a railway employee who was posted at Rethana made an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act day before the Prescribed Authority at Delhi. The Court held that since the railway employee was posted at Rethana and he had been paid his salary there, the Prescribed Authority at Delhi had no jurisdiction to entertain his application. In Rafi Uddin v. General Manager, B.B. and C.I. Railway, 1959 All LJ 106 (summary of cases) it was laid down that it was the place of employment which conferred jurisdiction union the Prescribed Authority to entertain claims under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. The acceptance or non-acceptance of employment was immaterial in considering the place of employment itself. The above decisions make it amply clear that the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority depend upon the place of employment where the railway employee may be posted or where his salary may be paid to him. 6. In the instant case admittedly the respondent No. 1 was transferred from Katihar and posted to Fatehgarh by the order dated March 7, 1960. That order was rescinded on 17-11-1969. Before that date the respondents posting at Fatehgarh continued to remain in force. No doubt the respondent did not join his duties at Fatehgarh but that does not affect the place of employment. Once an employee is transferred and posted to a particular place acceptance of the transfer order by that employee is immaterial. Even though he may not join his duties or physically may not go to the new place of posting he will continue to be posted there in the eye of law. His place of posting cannot be deemed to have changed merely because he disobeys the transfer order. In the present case the respondent did not join his duties at Fatehgarh but that did not change his place of posting. His place of posting cannot be deemed to have changed merely because he disobeys the transfer order. In the present case the respondent did not join his duties at Fatehgarh but that did not change his place of posting. His place of posting for all purposes continued to be at Fatehgarh and it was for that reason that the respondents salary was drawn from the District Engineer, Fatehgarh, and paid to him at Gorakhpur because he was confined in jail at Gorakhpur. The period for which the respondent is claiming relief before the Prescribed Authority at Gorakhpur, he continued to be posted at Fatehgarh. The order cancelling his transfer was passed subsequently in 1969, therefore the respondent continued in the employment at Fatehgarh, prioi to 17-11-1969. The Prescribed Authority committed a patent error of law in holding that since the respondent was under suspension, in the eye of law he would be deemed to be posted at headquarters at Gorakhpur. 7. In the result I hold that the Prescribed Authority at Gorakhpur had no jurisdiction to entertain the application or to grant any relief to the respondent under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. I, therefore, allow the petition and quash the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 23-10-1971. It will, however, be open to the respondent No. 1 toy withdraw his application and present the same before the appropriate Prescribed Authority. The parties will bear their own costs.