JUDGEMENT M.R. Verma. J. (Retd.) Chairman: - In this original application the applicant has prayed for issuing the direction to the respondents to release his withheld salary for the period September 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004 with interest at the rate of 12%. 2. The admitted facts of the case are that the applicant was transferred from Samoh to Namhol/vide transfer order dated August 29, 2003 (Annexure-A/1) and joined his duties at Namhol on September 10, 2003 vide joining report Annexure-A/2. As per the contents of duty of the place of his posting from September 10, 2003 to April 8, 2004. Vide transfer order Annexure-A/3 the applicant was transferred back to the place of his earlier posting at Samoh where he joined on April 12, 2004. However, his salary for the period September 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004 has not been released by the respondents on the strength of Govt. instructions dated July 27, 2000 (Annexure-R/1). The applicant claims that this course of action being unlawful is not available to the respondents for the reasons that he had simply complied with the orders of the respondents and had actually performed his duties during the aforesaid period, therefore his salary could not be withheld. 3. The respondents in their reply have justified their action of withholding the salary of the applicant on the ground that the applicant was transferred on his request and joined his duties in Namhol pursuant to the transfer order but the transfer in whose place he was posted at Namhol had not completed the normal tenures and obtained stay order from his Tribunal and thus "the applicant has remained surplus during the period September 10, 2003 to April 8, 2004" and the salary for this period has been drawn and disbursed to the other teacher who had obtained the stay of his transfer. It is further claimed that as per communication dated July 27, 2000 from the department of Personnel addressed inter alia to all Heads of Departments (Annexure-R/1) the applicant is required to apply for leave of the kind due for the period he remained surplus and only thereafter his salary can be drawn and disbursed to him with prior sanction of the Government. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and leaned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents and have also gone through the records. 5. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and leaned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents and have also gone through the records. 5. The fate of this application hinges on the validity or otherwise of Annexure-R/1, The relevant part whereas reads as under:- "Now after due consideration and in consultation with the Finance Department, it has been decided that in future the Administrative Departments shall identify the surplus employees and decide drawal of their salaries at their own level keeping in view the following guidelines:- 1. The employee who has been transferred and posted to another station and joins there as per norms, but the incumbent against whom he has been posted and who evaded such orders shall be rated as surplus. The employees who are going to surplus. The employees who are going to retire within next six months & are staying there may not be termed as surplus. 2. Salary shall be released only in such cases of surplus employees against vacancies where final adjustment has been made or the employee has retired from service or is due to retire within next six months. 1. In all such cases, the surplus adequate opportunity to the concerned employees for adjustment, the period of surplus shall begin after one month from the date of joining of substitute. 2. In case of posting of two employees at one place, the concerned DDG7 HDO shall take immediate steps for adjustment and relieving of surplus employees to enable them to join at their new places of posting. Court cases shall be followed on top priority basis." 6. It may be pointed out that the applicant joined at Namhol pursuant to the order of transfer passed by the competent authority and continued to work there from September 10, 2003 to April 8, 2004 as per duty certificate Annexure-A/5 issued by the Principal of the said school. When he was retransferred from Namhol vide Annexure-A/3 he complied with the transfer order and joined at Samoh. Thus the applicant acted pursuant to the orders passed by respondent No.2. It is not the case of the respondents that the concerned DDO/HDO ever took any action. In the matter pursuant to guideline No.5 of Annexure-R/1. Thus no fault can be found on the part of the applicant in staying at Samoh where he was discharged his duties. Thus the applicant acted pursuant to the orders passed by respondent No.2. It is not the case of the respondents that the concerned DDO/HDO ever took any action. In the matter pursuant to guideline No.5 of Annexure-R/1. Thus no fault can be found on the part of the applicant in staying at Samoh where he was discharged his duties. On the contrary he simply obeyed the order of the superior authorities as a Govt. employee is expected to do. 7. May be that the Govt issued the aforesaid guidelines as the employer to meet a situation where two employees are posted at the same station against one post. However, even such guidelines / executive instructions not shown to have any legal sanction are a subject matter of review by the court and an order made by an authority on its subjective satisfaction can be set aside by the court inter alia in a case where the authority has disabled itself from applying its mind to the facts of each individual case by self created rules / instructions/ guidelines or in any other manner. The effect of the contents of Annexure -R/1 apparently is that it disables the competent authority from applying its mind to, the facts of each individual case and ignores the interest of the person who abides by its orders and protects the interest only of such person who saves himself from complying with the orders on the strength of a stay order. 8. The aforesaid instructions are the punitive nature inasmuch as they require an employee who has obeyed the orders and has actually worked, to apply for the leave of kind due to get his pay / salary released. The above instructions / guidelines apart from being sans any statutory / legal sanction are diametrically opposed to the principle of natural justice, equity and good conscious. Therefore, the respondents cannot withhold the salary of the applicant on the strength of such guidelines / instructions. 9. There is yet another aspect of the matter. As already stated herein above, the effect of implementation of guidelines as in Annexure-R/1 is punitive. In other words implementation of these guidelines amounts to punishment. Therefore, the salutary principle of natural justice viz audi-alteram -partem which has now become part of our jurisprudence, is attracted end executive instructions cannot overide the said principle. As already stated herein above, the effect of implementation of guidelines as in Annexure-R/1 is punitive. In other words implementation of these guidelines amounts to punishment. Therefore, the salutary principle of natural justice viz audi-alteram -partem which has now become part of our jurisprudence, is attracted end executive instructions cannot overide the said principle. In the case in hand the action of respondent in withholding the pay of the applicant for the relevant period till he applies for leave of the kind due is an unilateral action without affording any opportunity to the applicant to explain his case to claim salary for the said period without being forced to apply for leave. Thus even on this score, the action of the respondents is unsustainable, illegal and thus liable to be set aside. 10. In Rejinder Paul versus State of Himachal Pradesh, Latest HLJ 2005 (HP) 257 a Division Bench of this Tribunal while dealing with a similar matter held as under: - "8. In the given case in hand the guidelines at SI. No. 1 may be attracted but it is more so in favour of the person who is evading the transfer or who has succeeded in getting stay order without the knowledge of the incumbent who dutifully in all sincerity has relinquished the charge an order to join at the new place of posting. The latter person suffers form for his honest and sincere deed while relinquishing the charge and joining on June 26, 2001. From June 26, 2001 upto March 31, 2002 he was regularly paid salary. Clause 5 of the guidelines Annexure-R/1 provides that in case of posting of two employees at one place, the concerned DDO/ HOD shall take immediate steps for adjustment and relieving of surplus employee to enable them to join at a new place of posting. In the present case no such steps appear to have been taken by the concerned officials. 9. In denying salary for the period for which he has been regularly working and directing him to apply for leave of the kind due would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. The application of natural justice become presumptive unless found excluded by express words of statute or necessary amendment. Reliance in this regard is placed on "Mangi Lal vs State of U.P. (2004) 2 SCC 447". The application of natural justice become presumptive unless found excluded by express words of statute or necessary amendment. Reliance in this regard is placed on "Mangi Lal vs State of U.P. (2004) 2 SCC 447". It is well settled that doctrine developed in the administrative law field to ensure the rule of law and to prevent failure of justice. Object of the doctrine of natural justice is not only to secure justice but to prevent miscarriage of justice. 10. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the applicant cannot be made to suffer by asking him to apply for leave of the kind due for no fault of his. In fact he is legally entitled to the salary for the period in question." The view taken in Rajinder Pauls case supra fully supports the view we have taken hereinabove. 11. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this original application is allowed to the extent that the respondents are directed to pay salary of the applicant for the period in question within one month.