Judgment : A.P. Bhangale, J. 1. Heard submissions at the Bar. The Petitioner State of Maharashtra impugns judgment and order dated 17th November 1998 passed by the Member (Judicial) of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 184 of 1996. The Tribunal has directed the petitioners to treat period between 2.9.1985 to 10.3.1993 as a period spent on duty by the respondent-employee. However, the Trbunal has held that the respondent would be entitled to half of her salary for the said period. She was also held to be entitled to increments, HRA and admissible allowances for the said period. 2. Facts are: By an order dated 02-08-1967 respondent was appointed as an Medical officer –class III. She had joined duty from 09-08-1968. In 1976 she was confirmed on the said post. On 03-11-1978 she was promoted as Class II Medical officer. She joined but was transferred from Balapur to Akola by order dated 23-06-1983. On 21-08-1985, she was again transferred from Akola to Balapur, even before completing her normal tenure, that too without any administrative exigency. Respondent had challenged her transfer order before the High Court. By order dated 05-09-1985 status quo was ordered. Respondent had served the status quo order upon the petitioner on 07-09-1985. Respondent was allowed to work from 07-09-1985 till 20-09-1985 and thereafter was prevented from signing the muster roll. Respondent had explained to the Authorities that she was available for the work but she was not permitted to work in the office and was kept away from the duty unlawfully on the pre-text that she must await for further order from the higher authorities. Respondent, therefore, filed the Original Application challenging the inaction on the part of present petitioners in deciding the claim of respondent for salary for the period from 2.9.1985 to 10.3.1994. It is revealed from the additional affidavit filed on behalf of present petitioners before the Tribunal that period between 2.9.1985 to 10.3.1993 has been treated as extraordinary leave without pay. 3. Petitioner had set up an inquiry against the respondent and charge sheet was issued to the respondent on the ground that the respondent though transferred to Akot by an order dated 21-08-1985 she purposefully and deliberately avoided to hand over the charge . The respondent was exonerated from all the charges. The Government had accepted the exoneration by the resolution dated 04-11-1993. The respondent was exonerated from all the charges. The Government had accepted the exoneration by the resolution dated 04-11-1993. On 11-03-1993 the respondent had joined her duties at Balapur. Respondent had made representations to the Authorities to regularize her leave period between 01-09-1985 to 10-03-1993 and to pay the arrears as she was not at fault for remaining absent from her duty. Her representations were not replied. No payment was made to her though respondent was ready to serve. Fed up with the financial hardship and inconvenience she had to apply for voluntary retirement by notice dated 01-08-1993. Though the respondent was ready to serve and was present on her duties, she was not allowed to work and was illegally prevented from joining her duty on 06-09-1985. After her exoneration from all the charges in the departmental enquiry by the inquiry officer respondent was allowed to join at Balapur. The period of absence was treated as extraordinary leave without pay. 4. Grievance of the respondent was that she was transferred even before she completed her normal tenure at Akola and when the action of the State was challenged the order of the status quo was passed by this Court on 05-02-1985 in favour of the respondent in her Writ Petition. According to the State, the respondent was already relieved on 02-09-1985 itself while respondent claimed that she was allowed to work till 20-09-1985 and made day-to–day representations till 17-10-1985 indicating her presence on duty. 5. The procedure to hand over charge is incorporated in Maharashtra Civil Service (General Conditions of service) Rules, 1981. Rule 29 provides that every relieving government servant is responsible for informing the Government servant to be relieved, at the earliest possible moment, of the date when he will be in a position to receive charge, and it is duty of the government servant to be relieved to be in readiness to deliver charge on that day. Rule 31 provides that “except as otherwise provided below the charge of a post must be made over at the headquarters, both the relieved and relieving government servants being present. Rule 31 (c) provides that “in exceptional circumstances, which should be recorded, a competent authority may permit the charge of a post to be made over in the absence of the relieved Government servant by letter or Telegram at or outside the headquarters of the post. Rule 31 (c) provides that “in exceptional circumstances, which should be recorded, a competent authority may permit the charge of a post to be made over in the absence of the relieved Government servant by letter or Telegram at or outside the headquarters of the post. Controlling Authority of the respondent did not care to ensure presence of the both reliever and relieved employees to comply with the above provisions No written order was passed to spell out any exceptional circumstances as contemplated under the Rule 31 (c) to hand over ex parte charge. The MAT found that the successor of the respondent was permitted to join the posting at Akola on 06-09-1985 despite the status quo order passed by this court. The respondent was relieved ex-parte against rule 31(c) of the MCS (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. The Petitioner had not rebutted the contention of the respondent that she was not allowed to sign the muster roll till 20-09-1985 The respondent was asked to wait till further orders for joining duties. Status quo granted on 05-09-1985 required the parties to maintain the same position as on the date of the order of the status quo meaning thereby that the respondent could not have claimed the posting at the place where she was relieved. The original muster roll was not produced. One sided C.T. C signed by one Smt. S.R. Ansari R.M.O. was accepted by the controlling authority while at the same time it appears that the respondent was asked to await for further order for joining duties. Same officer had mentioned that Mrs. Ranade left the office without filling up the C.T.C.s. Adverse inference was rightly drawn upon the non-production of the muster roll of the respondent’s attendance as the status quo order was passed by this Court and the matter was sub-judice. Even then no care was taken by the petitioners to maintain the record of respondent’s attendance. The contention of the respondent that she had signed the muster roll for some period even after 05-09-1985 is acceptable especially when the petitioners claimed that they have destroyed the muster roll. Disciplinary Authority had exonerated the respondent from all the charges levelled against her. It was thus accepted by the State Government that the respondent did not commit any mistake in not handing over the charge. Thus, very cause of the transfer of the respondent was without merits. Disciplinary Authority had exonerated the respondent from all the charges levelled against her. It was thus accepted by the State Government that the respondent did not commit any mistake in not handing over the charge. Thus, very cause of the transfer of the respondent was without merits. The principle of “no work no pay’ was not applicable as the petitioners did not allow the respondent to join her duties at the place of posting. Petitioners were responsible to keep the matter hanging between 1985 to 1993. The MAT has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and by a reasoned and sound judgment and order, the Tribunal has rightly allowed the Original Application. The Tribunal by taking note of the conduct of respondent that she maintained silence all the while, has granted half of the salary only to the respondent. No serious infirmity is found with the impugned judgment and order to require interference in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 6. In the result, writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.