M. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel also. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 6. 11. 2001 Annexure-16 to the petition. ( 3 ) WE have perused the impugned order. By that order the work of Dy. Commandant General has been taken away from the petitioner and was given to someone else. There is no allegation that the petitioners services have been terminated or suspended or that he has been reduced in rank or his salary has been reduced. In our opinion an employee cannot insist that he must be given work. An employee is entitled to get his salary and other allowance but no employee can insist that work be given to him. ( 4 ) NO doubt in P. K Chinnaswamy v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1988 SC 78 , it has been held that a Government servant should be given work, commensurate to his status. However, this decision cannot be said to have laid down any absolute principle that a Government employee must be given work. If a Government servant is getting his salary and Other benefits he cannot complain if he is not given work, or not given work of his choice. In fact he should be happy that he is getting his salary etc. without working. It is the discretion of the Govt. to give work or not to give work to its employee. Hence, we are not exercising our discretion under Article 226 of the constitution. .