Judgment :- 1. The Petitioner seeks writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to pay the salary due to the Petitioner from 01.09.2000 till 27.03.2003 along with interest. 2. Petitioner joined in the office of Town Panchayat, Marudur on 14.07.1967, and the Petitioner was subsequently transferred as Panchayat Record Clerk and I am working as Panchayat Record Clerk from 011. 1973. Subsequently from 08.07.1990, petitioner is working as Panchayat Record Clerk in the 5th Respondent Town Panchayat. 3. The Director of Municipal Administration by his order in Na.Ka.No.6440/99/A2 dated 30.03.1999, given certain directions to the Panchayats in respect of the staffs who are all affected by the degradation of Panchayats. After degradation, the Petitioner received the same salary from the 5th Respondent as he had received originally from Town Panchayat. 4. Case of the Petitioner is that 5th Respondent refused to pay the salary, though the Petitioner has attended the work and the 5th Respondent has extracted the work from the Petitioner. By the proceedings of the 1st Respondent dated 06.01.2003, Petitioner was transferred from 5th Respondent Panchayat to Ariyalur Town Panchayat as Record Clerk. Petitioner was working in Ariyalur Town Panchayat from 28.03.2003. According to the Petitioner he has not received salary from the 5th Respondent for the period from 01.09.2000 till 27.03.2003. The Petitioner seeks writ of mandamus to direct the Respondents to pay the salary for the said period. 5. The Respondents 2,4 and 5 filed separate counters stating that from 01.09.2000, for a period of 31 months the Petitioner was not working as Record Clerk in the 5th Respondent Panchayat and therefore no salary was paid to the Petitioner "No work, No pay". According to the Respondents, Petitioner is not legally entitled to receive the salary. It is further averred that in the proceedings initiated against the Petitioner, 1st Respondent transferred the Petitioner to Ariyalur Town Panchayat. The 5th Respondent has averred that the Petitioner is not legally entitled to receive the salary and the 5th Respondent is not bound to pay salary to the Petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr.J.Ramakrishnan, has contended that inspite of repeated reminders to the Respondents no steps were taken to disburse the salary from 01.09.2000 to 27.03.2003. The 5th Respondent has averred that the Petitioner is not legally entitled to receive the salary and the 5th Respondent is not bound to pay salary to the Petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr.J.Ramakrishnan, has contended that inspite of repeated reminders to the Respondents no steps were taken to disburse the salary from 01.09.2000 to 27.03.2003. The learned counsel further submitted that the Petitioner having worked with 5th Respondent, the Petitioner is legally entitled to receive the salary from 5th Respondent Panchayat and therefore suitable direction has to be issued for paying the salary to the Petitioner. 7. The Learned Additional Government Pleader, Mr.N.Senthilkumar, would submit that the Petitioner has not turned up for duty from 01.09.2000 and due to the irregularity of the Petitioner suitable action was taken and he was transferred to Ariyalur Town Panchayat and therefore the Petitioner is not entitled to the salary from 01.09.2000. 8. There is no denying that as per the order of the 1st Respondent in Na.Ka.No.6440/99/A2 dated 30.03.1999, the staffs of Kariamanickam Town Panchayat including the Petitioner were surrendered to the 5th Respondent. There is also no denying that the Petitioner was paid the salary till 31.08.2000 and salary was not paid from 01.09.2000 for a period of 31 months. 9. The Respondents contend that from 01.09.2000, the Petitioner did not regularly attend to the duty and because of his absence the 5th Respondent is not bound to pay the salary to the Petitioner. The contention of the 5th Respondent is that the Petitioner did not attend to duty is not supported by any material. If really the Petitioner was absent for nearly two years disciplinary proceedings would have been initiated; but no disciplinary proceedings seem to have been initiated against the Petitioner. 10. Per contra, by perusal of type set of papers it is seen by the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.135/2000, dated 20.07.2001, the 5th Respondent has sanctioned annual increment to the Petitioner for the period 01.04.1999, 01.04.2000 and 01.04.2001 . We may usefully extract the said proceedings sanctioning annual increments of the Petitioner: 11. The Respondents have alleged that the Petitioner did not attend to the work from 01.09.2000. As pointed out earlier no disciplinary proceedings seem to have been initiated against the Petitioner for his absence. We may usefully extract the said proceedings sanctioning annual increments of the Petitioner: 11. The Respondents have alleged that the Petitioner did not attend to the work from 01.09.2000. As pointed out earlier no disciplinary proceedings seem to have been initiated against the Petitioner for his absence. Way back in 06.08.2001, wife of Petitioner has sent representation to the Assistant Director of Municipal Administration for non payment of salary to her husband by the 5th Respondent. In response to the said representation by the proceedings O.Mu.3724/2001/Pa2 dated 07.08.2001, the Assistant Director of Municipal Administration had sent the letter to the Commissioner of 5th Respondent Panchayat, directing the 5th Respondent Panchayat to pay salary to the Petitioner from 01.09.2000 and also directing the 5th Respondent Panchayat to send proposal to transfer the Petitioner to some other Town Panchayat. Even after the direction from Assistant Director of Municipal Administration it appears that the Petitioner was not paid the salary. 12. As per the letter in Na.Ka.No.Pa2/57/2002 dated 30.04.2002, Assistant Director of Municipal Administration has sent proposal to the 1st Respondent to transfer the Petitioner to Town Panchayat Ariyalur in the vacancy caused due to the retirement of one Balachandran. Pursuant to the said proposal the 1st Respondent has passed Na.Ka.No.27526/2001/A2 dated 06.01.2003, for absorption of the transferring the Petitioner in the Parent Department -Town Panchayat and posting him in Ariyalur Town Panchayat as Record Clerk. It is pertinent to note that in the said proceedings, 5th Respondent was directed to relieve the Petitioner so as to enable him to join duty in Ariyalur. Pursuant to the proceedings of the 1st Respondent, 2nd Respondent-District Collector, Trichy has passed the order relieving the Petitioner from 5th Respondent Panchayat and ordering payment of salary from Ariyalur Town Panchayat from the date of his joining there on. By proceedings of 1st and 2nd Respondents it is clear that the Petitioner continued to work in 5th Respondent and only after being relieved he joined duty in Ariyalur Town Panchayat. 13. There is no force in the contention of the Respondents that the Petitioner has not attended the work from 01.09.2000. Having worked in 5th Respondent Panchayat the Petitioner is entitled for the salary to be paid by the 5th Respondent for the period from 01.09.2000 to 27.03.2003. The contention of the Respondents that the Petitioner has not reported for duty cannot be sustained. 14. Having worked in 5th Respondent Panchayat the Petitioner is entitled for the salary to be paid by the 5th Respondent for the period from 01.09.2000 to 27.03.2003. The contention of the Respondents that the Petitioner has not reported for duty cannot be sustained. 14. In the result the writ petition is allowed. The 5th Respondent is directed to pay salary to the Petitioner from 01.09.2000 to 27.03.2003. The Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to ensure compliance of the order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.