S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. ( 1 ) THE writ petitioner here challenges a transfer order dated 25. 5. 2001 and 20. 12. 2001 by which he was transferred. He also challenges the initiation of enquiry proceedings, conducted ex parte against him. ( 2 ) THE petitioner joined the services of Unit Trust of India as a Staff officer Grade-A on 5-9-1986 and was posted at Mumbai. With effect from 1-1-1992, he was promoted as Grade-B Officer. It is alleged that in November, 1992 the petitioner was issued a posting order to Hyderabad when he was not due for transfer and in violation of the transfer policy. Apparently, an adverse entry was recorded in his service records, without communicating it to him; on 1-1- 1994 his period of probation was extended; subsequently he was denied promotion to Grade-C on three successive occasions; he filed WP (C) No. 1067/99 before this court for redressal of that grievance. ( 3 ) ON 10. 5. 1999 the petitioner was promoted to Grade-C. On 25-5-2001 the unit Trust of India, the petitioner s employer, issued an order, annexing a list of officers in Grade-A,b and C who were earmarked for the UTI Financial Centres, regional Sales House, Central Processing Centre, Central Data Centre and disaster Recovery site. The order also indicated that transfers were to be effected in phases, subject to requirements of the respective offices. This was followed by an order on 20. 12. 2001. The petitioner had represented to the respondent authorities on 6-11-2001 asking that his transfer to Mumbai, ought not effected, on grounds of ill-health and surgery for cancer, of his mother. The request was declined on 19-12-2001 and by order dated 20-12-2001 the petitioner s services were transferred to the Central Processing Centre, belapur. He was asked to report for duties by 31-12-2001. The petitioner represented again on 26-12-2001 requesting sympathetic consideration of his case. He had approached the Court by filing WP (C) No. 1639 of 2002. That petition was disposed of as withdrawn, on 26-2-2002 and the petitioner expressed his willingness to drop allegations made in his representation against the transfer order and also move a fresh application for consideration of extension of his leave on account of his mother s health condition. ( 4 ) THE petitioner approached the respondents on 28-2-2002 again requesting for cancellation of the transfer order. ( 4 ) THE petitioner approached the respondents on 28-2-2002 again requesting for cancellation of the transfer order. The letter, however, also contained the expression ?without prejudice to my rights?;the request was turned down on 8-3- 2002. The UTI in its letter stated that he ought to have withdrawn the allegations. The petitioner s request for extension of leave was turned down on 22. 3. 2002. ( 5 ) THE record discloses that considerable correspondence ensued between the petitioner and his employer during the year 2002. On the one hand the petitioner kept requesting for cancellation of the transfer order and cancellation of his leave. He kept repeatedly reiterating the health condition of his mother as a ground for cancellation of the transfer order and also extension of leave. The respondent declined the request for cancellation of order but apparently granted him leave upto 16-4-2002. The correspondence also shows that there after the respondent did not relent and kept insisting that the petitioner ought to report at Belapur. The respondent also took the position in its letters that the petitioner had not complied with his statement made in the course of writ proceedings, about unconditional withdrawal of the allegations. ( 6 ) ON 13-8-2002 a notice was issued by the UTI to the respondent leveling various allegations and intimating that enquiry into his conduct, in not reporting for duties at the place of posting, was being initiated. The petitioner sought certain letters and documents and later wrote to the UTI on 6- 8-2002 indicating that he was suffering from SIATICA. The enquiry commenced on 13-9-2002; the petitioner could not attend the proceedings. The petitioner wrote to the respondents on 16-9-2002 enclosing copies of the medical records and also submitted that he could not participate on account of necessary documents not being supplied to him, his health condition and that he had not been paid salary since 2002. In these circumstances he approached the Court by filing writ proceedings questioning the transfer order as well as enquiry proceedings. By order dated 11. 10. 2002 this Court had, while issuing notice directed stay of the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner. ( 7 ) THE petitioner who argued the case submitted that Belapur Unit where he posted, did not have any proper office. By order dated 11. 10. 2002 this Court had, while issuing notice directed stay of the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner. ( 7 ) THE petitioner who argued the case submitted that Belapur Unit where he posted, did not have any proper office. He submitted that as per the conditions of service, the respondent-UTI was bound to grant option to the officials sought to be sent out since in such cases the posting amounted to a deputation. He relied upon the order dated 14-3-2002. The petitioner further relied upon certain orders issued by the UTI in cases of other employees which contained specific stipulations as to place of posting with the condition that transfer could be effected any where in India or abroad and that the posting also could be effected to any of the associates of the Unit Trust of India. In his case it was submitted that such condition did not exist and the transfer and placement policy applicable stipulated that only intra departmental transfers were permitted. It was contended that having been recruited by the Unit Trust of india, the petitioner could not be sent to another Organization without his express consent or without recording his willingness. ( 8 ) THE petitioner further contended that out of the list of 38 persons posted to Belapur 22 were transferred, after securingconsent. It was contended that after filing of the writ petition, in October 2002, itself, the CPC unit of belapur, Navi Mumbai, was finally handed over to UTIISL. However, instead of giving any alternate posting to the petitioner within UTI, Respondents clandestinely and in covert manner, included the petitioner s name in the office order dated 02. 12. 2002, without his consent. The said orders dated 2. 12. 2002 were in fact issued, to formally depute 300 officers, who had already been working with UTIISL, as per their own will at CPC, UTIISL at Belapur, Navi mumbai, since October 2002, without any such formal orders of their deputation. It was alleged that the said orders were also not served upon the petitioner and had not become operational in respect of his services. Even according to the respondents, the orders dated 2. 12. 2002 did not supersede the order dated 20. 12. 2001 and are merely consequential orders, passed in furtherance of the impugned transfer orders dated 20. 12. 202. Even according to the respondents, the orders dated 2. 12. 2002 did not supersede the order dated 20. 12. 2001 and are merely consequential orders, passed in furtherance of the impugned transfer orders dated 20. 12. 202. ( 9 ) THE petitioner filed an additional affidavit on 17. 02. 2003, specifically praying for restraining the respondents from deputing the petitioner to UTIISL and sought liberty to assail any such orders of deputation, in the present Writ Petition, itself. The respondents also filed their counter affidavit on 19. 5. 2003 and took the stand on the matter of deputation, under rule 113 of UTI (Staff) Rules, 1978. This court considered the stand of the respondents and passed the following orders on May 23, 2003:"counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents 2 to 6. In the coutner affidavit stand has been taken by the Respondents that in terms of Rule 113 (1) of the UTI Staff Rules, UTI may depute any staff to the administrator as appointed under the Unit Trust of India (Transfer of undertaking and repeal) Act, 2002 or any of the allied institutions mentioned therein. It is the contention of the counsel for the respondents 2 to 6 that unit Trust of India Investor Services Ltd. is an allied institute having its office at Belapur, Navi Mumbai and the petitioner could be sent on deputation without the consent of the petitioner. Prima facie the submission of the counsel for respodnents 2 to 6 seems to defy logic as well as law. Therefore petitioner need not go to Belapur. However, it will be open to the respondents to post the petitioner with the respondents/uti. " ( 10 ) IT is contended that the respondents were not directed to allow the petitioner to resume his duties and consider posting the petitioner some where in or around Delhi and he had made a fresh request on 20. 2. 2003, as per the directions given to him, giving four choices. But some other Grade c officers who was already working at Delhi, were transferred to Faridabad office on 26. 02. 200. It is urged that respondents had made a statement before the Court on 25. 02. 2003 that there were no vacancies for Grade c officers, at the offices mentioned above. This Court, it is contended, had repeatedly suggested to the respondents on 19. 02. 2003, 25. 02. 2003, 03. 02. 200. It is urged that respondents had made a statement before the Court on 25. 02. 2003 that there were no vacancies for Grade c officers, at the offices mentioned above. This Court, it is contended, had repeatedly suggested to the respondents on 19. 02. 2003, 25. 02. 2003, 03. 03. 2003 and 03. 04. 2003 to allow the petitioner to resume his duties within UTI and some where in or around Delhi; but the respondents did not allow petitioner to resume his duties, despite repeated suggestions of this Court. ( 11 ) THE Petitioner also relies on a combined order in CWP 6567/02 and in cwp 1067/1999, on May 22, 2004, where, while directing the respondents to take a considered decision in light of the observations pertaining to the Petitioner s promotion, the Court advised the respondents to reconsider the matter pertaining to the transfer/posting of the petitioner and in what manner the period of a little over 2 years (when the petitioner remained absent) had to be treated, as well as salary and continuity of service. But respondents once again declined to consider the case of the petitioner. ( 12 ) IT is contended that the respondents have unjustifiably made the transfer order a prestige issue and are deliberately denying a lawful posting to the petitioner, though during this period many Grade b officers were promoted to Grade c , apart from several fresh appointments, which had also been made in Grade c and above. The petitioner submitted that he has always been willing to work, with the respondents/uti and has made several request for allowing the petitioner to resume his duties. Therefore, in view of the office circular no. 33/2003-2004 dated November 28, 2003 as well as the orders passed by the Supreme Court of India, in the matter of J. N. Srivastava Vs. Union of india and Anr. (AIR 1999 SC 1571), the petitioner is entitled to all his emoluments, for the entire interregnum, which ought to be granted. This petitioner, has made a specific application praying for his emoluments for the period November 2002, onwards. Pleadings and Contentions of the UTI ( 13 ) THE UTI contends that the transfer order was issued in 20. 12. (AIR 1999 SC 1571), the petitioner is entitled to all his emoluments, for the entire interregnum, which ought to be granted. This petitioner, has made a specific application praying for his emoluments for the period November 2002, onwards. Pleadings and Contentions of the UTI ( 13 ) THE UTI contends that the transfer order was issued in 20. 12. 2001, yet, despite four years having elapsed since then, the petitioner has not joined his services, disobeying the order on one pretext or the other and taking undue advantage of the stay of enquiry proceedings directed by this court in its order dated 11. 10. 2002. ( 14 ) IT is submitted the petitioner had earlier filed an identical writ petition for the quashing of his transfer to CPC, Belapur, Navi Mumbai which was disposed off by this Hon ble Court by its order dated 26. 02. 2002. The petitioner cannot once again pray for the same relief in the present writ petition, his earlier writ petition having already been dismissed. ( 15 ) IT is alleged and contended that as per the said order (in the earlier writ petition) the petitioner was to withdraw baseless allegations made against some senior officers of UTI in his representations and he was to apply for extension of leave in view of the health the condition of his mother. The representation was to be made by the petitioner within two days i. e. by 28. 02. 2002 which was to be decided by the respondent UTI within a week. Mr. Keshwani, learned counsel for the UTI contended that the Petitioner never withdrew his baseless allegation against the officers of UTI and went on making representations for not transferring him from Delhi to CPC, Belapur, Navi Mumbai and applying for leave on the ground of ill health of his mother. The directions of this Court in the order dated 26. 02. 2002 were not complied with by the petitioner. ( 16 ) THE respondent s counsel contended that the letter dated 02. 08. 2002, of UTI, granted final opportunity to the petitioner to join on or before 09. 08. 2002 at CPC, Belapur and it was also stated in that letter that if he joined, then no disciplinary action would be taken against him. The petitioner by his letter dated 08. 08. 08. 2002, of UTI, granted final opportunity to the petitioner to join on or before 09. 08. 2002 at CPC, Belapur and it was also stated in that letter that if he joined, then no disciplinary action would be taken against him. The petitioner by his letter dated 08. 08. 2002 stated that he would not be able to join at CPC, belapur, because he met with a minor accident leading to acute pain in his leg and forwarded a medical certificate to the UTI. Thus the ground for absence was shifted from the ill health of his mother to his own sickness, at an opportune moment. It was urged that the UTI was left with no choice but to initiate disciplinary action, by serving a charge sheet dated 13. 08. 2002 interalia on the ground of unauthorised absence. ( 17 ) IT is contended that on 11. 10. 2002 the present writ petition came up for admission hearing where the respondent UTI appeared on caveat. On 11. 10. 2002 the petitioner once again prayed that he would apply to UTI for extension of leave which was recorded by the Hon ble Court as follows:"counsel for the respondent says that respondent will consider the application for extension of leave of the petitioner and pass appropriate order. In the meanwhile enquriy initiated by the respondent is stayed till the next date of hearing. " ( 18 ) IN compliance with the order dated 11. 10. 2002 of this Court, the UTI sanctioned leave of seven months upto August 7, 2002 and informed the petitioner that his request for further leave from 08. 08. 2002 onwards on the ground of his illness would be considered only after he underwent medical test prescribed by the company Medical Officer at Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi. The Petitioner was refusing to undergo the medical test so that the illness of convenience, which he was feigining, is not discovered. Ultimately, the petitioner after a long delay of more than five and a half moths underwent the medical test on 27. 01. 2003 and was found medically fit. ( 19 ) IT was submitted that petitioner was transferred pursuant to administrative exigencies resulting from the centralization of business and administrative activities and processes at Central Processing centre (CPC), belapur, Navi Mumbai. 01. 2003 and was found medically fit. ( 19 ) IT was submitted that petitioner was transferred pursuant to administrative exigencies resulting from the centralization of business and administrative activities and processes at Central Processing centre (CPC), belapur, Navi Mumbai. Hundreds of officers from all over the country from various zonal and branch offices, including several lady officers, were transferred pursuant to the said centralization because of which the transfer orders dated 25. 05. 2001 and December 20, 2001 were issued. The petitioner was one such officer, transferred along with several others. ( 20 ) THE allegation of malafides it was contended, was an argument of convenience, belied by the fact that a large number of officers were transferred and no consent was secured from anyone. Consent, is not required to be obtained as per Staff Rules and service conditions stipulated in the petitioner s letter of appointment. ( 21 ) COUNSEL contended that the transfer order was not stayed by this court; it continues to operate propiovigore and the petitioner is duty bound to comply with it. It was also averred and submitted that around November, 2002 UTI investors Services Ltd. , an allied institution of UTI, was appointed as registrar and Transfer Agent to handle all the schemes which were being handled earlier at UTI, CPC, Belapur. The office premises of UTI Investors Services Ltd. at Andheri Office, Mumbai also shifted to the premises at CPC, Belapur, Navi mumbai. As the work of various schemes which was earlier handled by CPC Belapur was transferred to UTI Investors Services Ltd an allied institution which had migrated its office premises at CPC, Belapur, a deputation order being office order No. 141 dated 2. 12. 2002 was issued and all officers at CPC Belapur were out on deputation to UTI Investors Services Ltd. , at the same premises. The officers continued to perform the same work consequent upon deputation to UTI Investors services Ltd. , without any change in the conditions of their services. Therefore the question of alternative posting consequent upon the deputation order dated 2. 12. 2002 did not arise. ( 22 ) THE Petitioner was found medically fit on 27. 01. 2003 and therefore had no reason not to join at CPC, Belapur. Therefore the question of alternative posting consequent upon the deputation order dated 2. 12. 2002 did not arise. ( 22 ) THE Petitioner was found medically fit on 27. 01. 2003 and therefore had no reason not to join at CPC, Belapur. It was contended that he came up with an ingenious plea that he cannot be sent on deputation without his consent to an allied institution of UTI which is a separate entity. The Petitioner never challenged the deputation order dated 2. 12. 2002 whereby hundreds of officers were deputed to UTI Investors services Ltd. , without their consent ( 23 ) COUNSEL relied on Rule 113 of UTI Staff Rules and contended that the provision empowers the UTI to send any employee on deputation to an allied institution and no consent was required. The UTI Investor Services Ltd. , to which the petitioner alongwith several officers were deputed, is one such allied institution specifically mentioned in the said Rule 113 itself. No consent whatsoever was taken from any of such hundreds of officers so deputed. On such deputation, the employees continue to be employees of the UTI and their service conditions are also protected. However, for deputation to other foreign institutions (Under rule 114) consent of the employee is required. ( 24 ) IT was alleged, and contended that Rule 113 empower UTI to send personnel on deputation without their consent to allied institutions of UTI; it has not been challenged by the petitioner. The rule is statutory in nature having been framed under Section 31 of the erstwhile UTI Act, 1963. Section 31 of the erstwhile UTI Act, 1963 under which the said rule has been framed is parimateria with Section 43 of the State Bank of India Act which has been held to be of statutory nature by the Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs. C. B. Dhalli ( 1998 (2) SCC 544 . It was also submitted that the the Petitioner, at the time of joining service in 1986 signed form a? C. B. Dhalli ( 1998 (2) SCC 544 . It was also submitted that the the Petitioner, at the time of joining service in 1986 signed form a? by which he has agreed to be bound by the Staff Rules as in force from time to time and he cannot therefore defy a lawful deputation order deputing more than 300 officers to UTI Investors services Ltd. , (an allied institution of UTI) by pleading that hid consent has not been taken and when no such consent has been taken from any of other 300 officers. ( 25 ) IT is submitted that the allotment of place and office/centre for work is the sole discretion of the management and no employee can insist that he should be alloted a particular posting or place as per his convenience. Certain other allegations about the petitioner running a school at the ground floor premises of his residence under the name ?scholars Convent Nursery School (Air- conditioned)? through his friends and relatives has been levelled. It is claimed that the fact there is such a school on the ground floor of his residence has been admitted by the petitioner in his affidavit dated 30. 09. 2004 filed before this Court. In the Affidavit, the petitioner has averred that he has no interest whatsoever in the said school being run on the ground floor of his house. ( 26 ) DURING the course of hearing Mr. Keswani, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that he has instructions to state that the petitioner could be accommodated and that he would be permitted to report for duties to the UTI asset Management Company Ltd at Mumbai and that the period of his absence would be treated as extra ordinary leave as per the policies of the respondent. It was also stated that the departmental enqujiry would be dropped. On a specific query, it was submitted that the petitioner s request for salary could be granted only upto August, 2002 but for the subsequent period it was not possible to accede to the request. This was on the bases of the Court s order that an option was given to UTI AMC Pvt. Ltd. to post the petitioner. ( 27 ) THE petitioner was appointed on 5-9-1986. This was on the bases of the Court s order that an option was given to UTI AMC Pvt. Ltd. to post the petitioner. ( 27 ) THE petitioner was appointed on 5-9-1986. The respondents in this case have relied upon a declaration by the petitioner to be bound by the terms of the Unit Trust of India (Staff) Rules, 1978. Those rules framed under the unit Trust of India Act. The UTI has relied upon Rules 112 and 114, which were amended pursuant to the Unit Trust of India (Transfer of Undertaking and repeal), Act, 2002. The said provisions reads as follows :-"foreign SERVICE deputation of employees to join Military Service. 112. The terms and conditions subject to which an employee may be permitted to join military service shall be determined by the Chairman. Deputation of employees to the Administrator or the allied institutions. 113. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Unit trust may depute any member of its staff for such period as it may think fir to the Administrator as appointed under The Unit Trust of India (Transfer of undertaking and repeal) Ordinance, 2002/ Act as the case may be, or the allied institutions viz. Unit Trust of India Investor Services Ltd. , Unit Trust of india Institute of Capital Markets, UTI Banks Ltd. Unit Trust of India investment Advisory Services Ltd. , Unit Trust of India Securities Exchange Ltd. , uti Venture Funds Management Company Ltd. , and Unit Trust of India international ltd. , and thereupon the person so deputed shall, during the period of his deputation, render such service to the administrator or the allied institutions, as that administrator or the allied institutions may require. (2) Where a person has been deputed to the administrator or the allied institutions under subrule (1), he shall not be entitled to claim any salary, emoluments and other terms and conditions of service which he would not have been entitled to claim if he had not been so deputed. (3) Nothing contained in this Rule shall empower the Unit Trust to depute any member of its staff to the administrator or the allied institutions on any salary, emoluments or other terms and conditions which is or are less favourable to him than that or those to which he is entitled immediately before such deputation. Deputation of employees to other services. 114. Deputation of employees to other services. 114. Without prejudice to the provisons of Rules 112 and 113 - (1) no employee of the Unit Trust may be deputed to serve under any other employer without the approval of the Board who shall determine the duration of such deputation and the terms and conditions on which the deputation shall take effect, provided that no employee may be transferred to foreign service against his will. (2) Where the services of an employee of the Unit Trust are placed at the disposal of a foreign employer, it shall be a condition of the deputation that the foreign employ or shall, during the period of such deputation, bear the entire cost of the services of the employee including the following, viz, -- (a) Pay during joining time. (b) traveling allowances payable to the employee to enable him to join his appointment under a foreign employer and to return to his appointment under foreign employer and to return to his appointment in the Unit Trust on the termination of his deputation. (c) leave eanred during the period of deputation. (d) The employee is entitled to pension under the Unit Trust, an amount as may hbe determined by the Chairman, sufficient to cover the Unit Trust s liability towards the pension for the period be employee is on deputation. In addition, the foreign employer may also be required to make a contribution towards any gratuity or other sum for which the employee may become eligible on his retirement, on such scale as may be fixed by the Chairman. ? the facts of this case therefore, raise the issue as to whether the petitioner s transfer was legal and valid. ( 28 ) THE petitioner had approached the Court earlier by filing WP (C) no. 1369/02, seeking quashing of the transfer to Central Processing Centre, belapur. That petition was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to him to approach the respondents seeking review of the order; liberty was conditional upon withdrawal of the allegations levelled by the petitioner against the respondents. The subsequent correspondence between the parties reveal that even though the petitioner sought for review/ cancellation, the respondents insisted that he ought to withdraw the allegations. The subsequent correspondence between the parties reveal that even though the petitioner sought for review/ cancellation, the respondents insisted that he ought to withdraw the allegations. To a certain extent the stand point of the respondents appear to have been justified because the letters or representations on record, addressed by the petitioner show that he withdrew the allegations or expressed remorse in that regard. ( 29 ) THE record of correspondence and the factual narrative reveals that the petitioner insisted that the transfer order ought to be cancelled on account of his mother?s serious ailment. Both the parties hardened their positions and this resulted in a chain reaction; the respondent initiated departmental proceedings. By that time the petitioner too had fallen ill. The enquiry proceedings were stayed by this Court. ( 30 ) THE factual narrative also discloses that the respondents acknowledged the petitioner?s medical condition and required him to report to a doctor, he was later found fit to resume duties on 27. 1. 2003. ( 31 ) THIS Court by its order dated 23-5-2003 recorded, prima facie, that the posting of the petitioner on deputation without his consent was not permissible. Liberty was, however, granted to the respondents to post the petitioner, with the Respondent-UTI. ( 32 ) RULE 113 of the Unit Trust of India Staff Rules, 1978, which has been extracted above, was amended. It is clear that the Unit Trust of India is empowered to depute any member of the staff (for such length or periods of time as is deemed appropriate) to allied Institutions such as Unit Trust of India investors Services Ltd. , Unit Trust of India Capital Markets, UTI Banks Ltd. , unit Trust of India Invetment Advisory Services Ltd. , Unit Trust of India securities Exchange Ltd. , UTI Venture Funds Amendment Company Ltd and UTI international Ltd. A combined reading of Rules 113 (2) and (3) shows that existing emoluments and conditions of service of deputed officials has to be preserved and they are not entitled to claim any other amounts which they would, otherwise, dis-entitled too. ( 33 ) IT is well settled that a public employer is within its rights to transfer or depute its employees, in accordance with its policies or rules and regulations. Transfer or deputation is an incident of public service. ( 33 ) IT is well settled that a public employer is within its rights to transfer or depute its employees, in accordance with its policies or rules and regulations. Transfer or deputation is an incident of public service. During the course of hearing, the petitioner?s main attempt was to establish that he could not be deployed to Belapur, CPC, without his consent. A plain reading of the rules, as amended, coupled with the fact that all employees were put on notice, in advance, about the impending restructuring of UTI, would show that the latter had the power to issue posting orders, of the nature imugned in these proceedings. I am not persuaded to hold that the respondents did not possess the power to deploy its eployees, through deputation or transfer, without seeking their consent. I am also satisfied that the impugned order, posting the petitioner was issued as a part of the larger measure of restructuring, and consequent deployment of staff; the materials on record do not bear out the complaint of arbitrariness or mala fides. No doubt, the petitioner was facing hardship, on account of the serious medical condition of his mother; nevertheless the record does not show that the respondent acted as a heartless monster, as portrayed by the petitioner during the course of hearing. The respondents have affirmed, on affidavit, that the petitioner?s services would be treated as on leave till 7th August, 2002. ( 34 ) AS noticed in the earlier part of the judgment, learned counsel for the respondent had stated that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner would be dropped, if he reports to the UTI, AMC. The counsel had also stated that the period between 2002 and till the petitioner reports for duty would be considered as extra-ordinary leave. Pursuant to orders of Court, the Respondent was directed to issue a separate order on the question of salary and allowances for the period the petitioner did not report for duties. The respondents have issued an order, and placed it on record, stating that the salary as admissible would be disbursed, in view of the leave sanctioned, upto 7th August, 2002. ( 35 ) I am of the opinion that even though the respondents have now stated that the petitioner would be taken back to duties, and extra-ordinary leave would be sanctioned, this position could have been indicated much earlier. ( 35 ) I am of the opinion that even though the respondents have now stated that the petitioner would be taken back to duties, and extra-ordinary leave would be sanctioned, this position could have been indicated much earlier. The disputes between parties have lingered for too long, and had the proposal made now, been indicated earlier, the petition could have been disposed off earlier. This does not mean that the petitioner is completely absolved of all blame. He persisted in not reporting for duties, though there was no stay of the transfer, all this while. In view of this, the petitioner cannot also legitimately seek a direction for full salary for the entire period. ( 36 ) IN view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that upon balancing the equities, in the facts of this case, the appropriate course would be to issue the following directions : (i)The respondents shall issue an order, posting the petitioner to the UTI AMC at Mumbai, within 6 weeks from today; (ii)the respondents shall also issue a separate order treating the entire period between March 2002, and till issuance of the order as per direction (i) above as extraordinary leave; (iii)the respondents shall pay an amount equivalent to one years? salary and allowances, to the petitioner, within six weeks from today;the writ petition is disposed off in the abvoe terms. No costs. .