S. K. JAIN, J. Sri V. K. Tewari, the petitioner herein, was appointed Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Auraiya. He worked on that post with effect from 1-12-1956 to 16-3-1963. Thereafter he was appointed as Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Farrukhabad with effect from 17-9-1963. He was absorbed in U. P. Local Bodies Centralized Services in. its constitution with effect from 9-7-1966. Thereafter he remained posted as Executive Officer in various Municipal Boards and Corporations of the State. He was promoted as Up Nagar Adhikari and posted in the Nagar Mahapaliks, Varanasi. After serving there for three years, he served for another three years as Up Nagar Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad. In July 1982 ha was transferred as Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Moradabad. This post carried the same pay scale as that of Up Nagar Adhikari. He had become due for promotion to the selection grade of Rs. 3700-5000. Rut as the luck would have it, vide order dated 8-1-1986 the State Government placed him under suspension on account of his allegedly having committed irregularities during his tenure at Jaunpur in the purchase of Maxphalt (Coaltar) and other matters. The petitioners hied Writ Petition No. 2024 of 1986 at Lucknow Bench in the month of March, 1986 seeking following reliefs : (i) quashment of the suspension order and the charge-sheet; (ii) to allow him to continue in his post ; and (iii) forbidding the respondents to take disciplinary proceedings against him. Said writ petition after exchange of affidavits and contest was dismissed vide order dated 13-9-1989 (Annexure 13) which reads as under: " (1) If no charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner the impugned order of suspension shall stand revoked. (2) If the charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner but the enquiry was not concluded despite the petitioner having filed his reply and cooperated in the enquiry the impugned order of suspension shall stand revoked. (3) If the disciplinary enquiry has been concluded and final order has been passed therein the order of suspension shall merge in the final order. (4) If the petitioner has not filed reply to the charge-sheet or the proceedings have not been concluded because of failure of the petitioner to cooperate, the writ petition shall stand dismissed and the stay order shall stand vacated. " 2. In the meanwhile vide order dated 27-6-1988 the petitioner was re instated pending enquiry. (4) If the petitioner has not filed reply to the charge-sheet or the proceedings have not been concluded because of failure of the petitioner to cooperate, the writ petition shall stand dismissed and the stay order shall stand vacated. " 2. In the meanwhile vide order dated 27-6-1988 the petitioner was re instated pending enquiry. He joined on 30-6-1988 as Executive Officer, Nagarpalika, Moradabad. 3. Vide order dated 22-7-1988 he was transferred to Ballia as officer-in-charge, Nagar Palika. But instead of joining at Ballia he made representa tions thereby seeking that his transfer from Moradabad be deferred pending conclusion of the enquiry. No reply to his representation was, however, received by him. The officer-in-charge, Nagar Palika, Moradabd vide letter dated 10-8-1988 (Annexure II) suggested to the Government to treat the peti tioner relieved from the post of Executive Officer, Moradabad with effect from 2-8-1988. The State Government, however, did not approve of it. The peti tioner was not paid salary for the period with effect from 30-6-1988 to 28-8-1988 by the Nagar Palika, Moradabad where he remained posted as Executive Officer during this period. 4. The State Government issued order dated 17-9-1988 (Annexure-12 ). Relevant portion of the same read as under : "in view of forthcoming elections of Local Bodies the Government has decided that no further transfer order of employees, officers of all Local Bodies, Development Authorities and Special Area Develop ment Authorities and Jal Sansthan should be made till further orders. The Government has also decided that the order issued by Urban Development and Director of Local Bodies after 30-6-1988 in respect of employees officials of all Local Bodies, Development Authorities, Special Area Development Authorities and Jal Sansthan should not be acted upon if the transferred employees/ officers have not yet been relieved by the controlling officer. It may be clarified that the officers/officials/employees who have already been relieved by the concerned officers in compliance of the transfer order in their, absence, they should be treated to have been formally relieved and transferred and therefore the e instructions will not apply to such cases. However, in special cases the transfers recommended by the Administrator on administrative grounds can be considered by the Government. Please inform all concerned accordingly. " 5. However, in special cases the transfers recommended by the Administrator on administrative grounds can be considered by the Government. Please inform all concerned accordingly. " 5. The petitioner filed another writ Petition bearing No. 17035 of 1990 seeking the following reliefs : (i) quashment of the disciplinary proceedings ; (ii) payment of salary w. e. f. 1-7-1998 onwards ; (iii) payment of the balance of salary for the suspension period; and (iv) grant of all benefits in the matter of promotion and higher pay In the above writ petition an interim order was passed on 24-7-1990 directing the Director, Local Bodies, Lucknow to complete the disciplinary proceedings within three months. This writ petition is still pending. 6. After the disciplinary proceedings were completed the petitioner was served with order dated 29-10- 1990 (Annexure 1) thereby informing him that the second and third charge had been proved against him partly and fully respectively. Resultantly, the punishment of making an adverse entry in his service record was inflicted on him vide said order. 7. Notice dated 23-1-1991 (Annexure 2) was also served on him asking him to show cause as to why his salary during the suspension period be not reduced to the subsistence allowance already paid to him. He submitted reply followed by representation dated 21-3-1991 which was rejected. The petitioner retired from service on 28-2-1994 while serving in Nagar Palika Bareily. 8. In this petition the petitioner has sought the following reliefs : (i) quashment of order dated 29-10-1990 (Annexure 1); (ii) quashment of notice dated 23-1-1991 (Annexure 2); (iii) payment of balance salary for the suspension period ; (iv) payment of salary with effect from 1-7-1988 to 2-8-1988 ; and (v) grant of all benefits in the matter of promotion and higher pay scale. 9. In spite of having been given opportunities, counter affidavit, whatso ever, was filed on behalf of the State, respondent Nos. 1 and 2, whereas counter affidavit on behalf of Nagar Palika, Moradabad, respondent No. 3 has been filed. In para 10 of the said counter affidavit respondent No. 3 has taken the stand that vide order of the State Government No. 1214/1/11-4-88-9-VV/88, dated 22-7-1988 the petitioner was transferred and posted as officer-in-charge, Nagar Palika, Ballia. In compliance of the said order he was relieved from Nagar Palika, Moradabad on 2-8-1988. In para 10 of the said counter affidavit respondent No. 3 has taken the stand that vide order of the State Government No. 1214/1/11-4-88-9-VV/88, dated 22-7-1988 the petitioner was transferred and posted as officer-in-charge, Nagar Palika, Ballia. In compliance of the said order he was relieved from Nagar Palika, Moradabad on 2-8-1988. It was admitted that the officer-in- charge, Nagar Palika, Moradabad, vide his letter dated 10-8-1988 (Annexure 11), had suggested to the State Government to treat the petitioner relieved from the post of Executive Officer, Moradabad with effect from 2-8-1988. It has further been averred in the said para of the counter-Affidavit that sanction oi the State Government for payment of 32 days salary to the petitioner was also sought through letter dated 10-8-1988. The Nagar Palika, Moradabad was under no obligation for payment of salary to the petitioner after 2-8-1988 as he ceased to continue to the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Moradabad. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has vehemently argued that the petitioner did not comply with the order dated 22-8-1988 (Annexure 8) vide which he was transferred to Balha as Officer- m-Charge, Nagar Palika and instead continued to stay at Moradabad. Therefore, the principle of "no work no pay" was fully applicable to his case. In reply learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention towards Annexure 12 and has vehemently argued that in view of the Government Order the trans fer of the petitioner stood automatically cancelled and now the argument as advanced by the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was not avail able to him. 11. We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments. Contents of the Government Order (Annexure 12) have been reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment. It has been clearly directed in the said com munication as under : "the Government has also decided that orders issued by the Urban Development and Director of Local Bodies after 30-6-1968 in respect of employees/officials of all Local Bodies, Development Authorities, Special Area Development Authority and Jal Sansthan should not be acted upon if the transferred employees/officers have not yet been relieved by the controlling officer. " 12. As mentioned earlier, the officer-in-charge Nagar Palika, Moradabad had suggested to the State Government that the petitioner be treated to have been relieved with effect from 2-8-1988. " 12. As mentioned earlier, the officer-in-charge Nagar Palika, Moradabad had suggested to the State Government that the petitioner be treated to have been relieved with effect from 2-8-1988. The State Government had not rightly approved of the said suggestion in view of the direction contained in Annexure 12. As the petitioner had not been relieved before 30-6-1988 he could not be deemed to have been relieved with effect from 2-6-1988. The petitioner after having been reinstated had joined as Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Moradabad on 30-6-1988. Order dated 22-7-1988 thereby transferring the petitioner from Moradabad to Ballia was served on him on 2-8-1988. Therefore, the Nagar Paiika, Morabadad was liable to make payment of salary of the petitioner for the period with effect from 30-6- 1988 to 2-8-1988. The admitted case of the petitioner is that he had received salary with effect from 30- 7-1993 to 28-2-1994 from Nagar Palika, Bareilly, whereafter he had retired. The question that remains to be answered is as to who was liable to make payment of his salary for the period with effect from 3-8- 1988 to 29-7-1y93. 13. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has submitted that reinstatement order dated 27-6- 1988 was a composite order. Besides reinstating the petitioner he was also transferred to Ballia. But he in order to avoid joining at Ballia, made representation to the State Government and therefore unauthorisedly stayed back at Moradabad, and hence he was not entitled to any salary for the period in question. We do not find any force in the argu ment of the learned counsel for respondent Nos. i and 2. A persual of the record would show that the petitioner had filed a supplementary affidavit on 18-1-1994 wherein he has mentioned that he had received a transfer order dated 16-6-1993 issued by respondent No. 1 thereby transferring him from Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur to Nagar Mahapalika, Bareilly, whereas the peti tioner was never posted at Kanpur. It is not the case of respondent that the petitioner had been transferred and posted at Kanpur at any point of time. On receipt of the order dated 16-6-1993 he went to Bareilly but was not allowed to join in Nagar Mahapalika, Bareilly for want of reliev ing certificate from the Nagar Mahapaiika, Kaapur. It is not the case of respondent that the petitioner had been transferred and posted at Kanpur at any point of time. On receipt of the order dated 16-6-1993 he went to Bareilly but was not allowed to join in Nagar Mahapalika, Bareilly for want of reliev ing certificate from the Nagar Mahapaiika, Kaapur. A copy of the order dated 16-6-1993 has been annexed to the supplementary affidavit as Annexure S. A. I. Faced with such a situation he moved an application mentioning about the abovementioned facts therein. Letter dated 29-10-1991, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the amendment application, makes it further clear that the petitioner remained attached to Nagar Palika, Moradabad as Executive Officer. On receipt of the above said application dated 16-7-1993 from the petitioner, letter dated 28-7-1993 (Annexure S. A. 3) was addressed by the Joint Secretary to the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari Nagar Mahapalika, Barielly asking him to allow the petitioner to join the Nagar Mahapalika, Barielly within a weak. Thereupon he was allowed to join on 30-7-1993. As a sequel to the above discussion : (i) Nagar Palika, Moradabad, respondent No. 3 is directed to pay to the petitioners salary for the period with effect from 30-6-1988 to 2-8-1988 ; and (ii) State of U. P. through Secretary, Nagar Vikas Anubhag, Lucknow, and the Director, Local Bodies, Lucknow, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively are directed to pay to the petitioner salary for the period with effect from 3-8-1988 to 29-6-1993 along with other promotional and selection grade benefits. 14. These directions will be complied with by the respondents within six months from the date on which a certified copy of this judgment is furnish ed to them by the petitioner. Petition allowed. Petition allowed. .