JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the respondents be directed to pay salary to the petitioner from 05.11.2003 to 14.07.2004. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was transferred by the respondents vide order dated 23.10.2003 and on the same day he was relieved. 3. The order of transfer as well as relieving order was then challenged by the petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Pet. No. 6219/03. This court vide its order dated 04.11.2003 stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 23.10.2003. As consequence of staying the operation of the order aforesaid, the petitioner was required to be allowed to join his duties on the place from where he was transferred but to utter surprise the respondents passed an order dated 12.11.2003 (annexure/15) by which it was directed that the petitioner may not be allowed to join duties at Rawla i.e. the place where the petitioner was transferred whereas in compliance of the order passed by this court, the respondents were required to pass an order or otherwise allow the petitioner to join his duties at the place from where he was transferred i.e. Sri Ganganagar. The outcome of the order dated 12.11.2003 remains that the petitioner was not allowed to work at either of the place till the order was finally passed by the respondents on 5.8.2004, the petitioner was earlier allowed to join his duties due to active intervention of the higher authorities at Rawla only on 14.7.2004 thus the petitioner is entitled for the salary of the intervening period. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents though argued the matter but could not supply the justification for denial of the benefit of salary more so when despite of the interim order passed by this court the petitioner was not allowed to join his duties at Sri Ganganagar or even 'Rawla'. In view of the above, since the petitioner was restrained to join his duties form 05.11.2003 even pursuant to the interim order passed by this court, it cannot be said that it was due to any default of the petitioner that he should be deprived from salary from the period starting from 05.11.2003 till the petitioner was allowed to join his duties on 14.07.2003. 5. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. 5. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to give the salary to the petitioner of the intervening period starting from 05.11.2003 to 14.07.2004 and the said period would otherwise be treated as continuance in service. There is no order as to cost.Writ petition allowed with direction to pay salary in question. *******