JUDGMENT : Heard Sri R.S. Pradhan, learned senior counsel, who was assisted by Sri Rajeev Lochan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to SC No. 21. 2. The petitioner, invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for directing the Respondents to make payment of his full salary for the period 13.8.1996 to 18.12.1998. It has been claimed that during the said period the petitioner was posted as Steno in the office of Ground Water Directorate, Patna. A further prayer has been made to quash Annexure-‘6’ to the writ petition i.e. Memo No. 520 Dated 25.1.2008 whereby the prayer of the petitioner for making payment of the aforesaid due salary was rejected. Besides this the petitioner has also prayed for directing the Respondents to make payment of interest on delayed payment of due salary for his suspension period i.e. from 5.6.1994 to 12.8.1996 and also interest on payment of salary for another period. 3. The case of the petitioner is that earlier while he was posted in the Ground Water Directorate, Patna, he was put under suspension vide Order Dated 9th August 1994 and he was proceeded Departmentally also. However since for about more than two years he was kept under suspension a bench of this Court vide Order Dated 13.8.1996 revoked the order of suspension from the date of Order i.e. 13.8.1996. This Court also observed that petitioner shall be entitled to full salary from the date of Order. It has been pleaded by the petitioner that immediately after the order of the writ Court the petitioner submitted his joining in the Office of Respondent No. 5. Subsequently, the order of suspension was revoked by the Department. While revoking suspension, the petitioner was transferred to the Office of Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Siwan. Of-course, he was ordered to be transferred but no relieving order was issued. It has been pleaded that the petitioner repeatedly requested the Respondents to relieve him, however, he was never relieved and orally asked to join in absence of relieving order. The petitioner thereafter approached the Office of Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Siwan. However, by Memo No. 497 Dated 6.10.1998 he was intimated by the Executive Engineer that since no relieving order has been issued his joining may not be in accordance with law and as such, his joining was refused. The petitioner thereafter approached the Office of Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Siwan. However, by Memo No. 497 Dated 6.10.1998 he was intimated by the Executive Engineer that since no relieving order has been issued his joining may not be in accordance with law and as such, his joining was refused. The petitioner thereafter again returned back to the Department. Thereafter, vide Annexure-‘4’ to the writ petition the Executive Engineer was directed by the Deputy Secretary, Water Resources (Minor Irrigation) Department that since the order of transfer was issued after revoking suspension order there was no need to issue relieving order and direction was issued to accept joining of the petitioner. This communication was made vide Memo No. 7413 Dated 16.12.1998. The petitioner only thereafter was allowed to join Siwan. Since the petitioner was not paid salary for the period as indicated above, the petitioner approached the authority concerned to pay the due salary which was repeatedly rejected and finally his claim has been rejected vide Annexure-‘6’ to the writ petition. 4. Sri Pradhan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that since even after revoking suspension order and transferring the petitioner to Siwan no relieving order was issued, the petitioner was continuing in the office of Ground Water Directorate, Patna and only after the issuance of Annexure - ‘4’ even in absence of relieving order his joining was accepted at Siwan. According to learned counsel for the petitioner denying salary for the aforesaid period is illegal. He has placed reliance on a Government Instruction issued by Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department vide Letter No. 1P-3037/81 Ka-3399 Dated 16th March, 1981 and submits that in absence of relieving order the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Siwan had rightly refused joining of the petitioner and petitioner was constrained to remain at Patna itself. He further submits by way of referring to subsequent event that in the year 2004 also while transferring the petitioner relieving order was issued which is contained in Annexure-11 Series at Page No. 12 to the reply to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on 11th September 2015. 5. He further submits by way of referring to subsequent event that in the year 2004 also while transferring the petitioner relieving order was issued which is contained in Annexure-11 Series at Page No. 12 to the reply to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on 11th September 2015. 5. Learned counsel for the State opposing the prayer of the petitioner has argued that on perusal of Annexure-‘3’ itself it is evident that before 26.9.1998 the petitioner in compliance with the order of his transfer had never went to Siwan and as such after his transfer order he unauthorizedly remained absent. According to learned counsel for the State for the period during which the petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent, he may not claim any salary. By way of referring to statement made in paragraph no. 16 of the supplementary counter affidavit he has argued that the petitioner did not submit his joining at Siwan after his order of transfer and he remained absent for about two years and thereafter, he submitted his joining at the new place. It has been reiterated that the period during which salary is being claimed was the period of unauthorized absence and as such the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief. Sri Pradhan replying to the submission made by learned counsel for the State has argued that the petitioner in absence of relieving order had remained in the office of Ground Water Directorate, Patna and only after issuance of Annexure-‘4’ whereby Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Siwan was directed to accept joining of the petitioner even in absence of relieving order, the petitioner joined at new place i.e. Siwan. He has specifically referred to paragraph no. 3 of the reply of the petitioner to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on 11th September 2015. It would be appropriate to quote the statement made in paragraph no. 3 of the reply filed by the petitioner which is quoted hereinbelow:- “3. That, it is stated that earlier a counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no. 6 was field mainly raising a question that after revocation of suspension it was not necessary to issue any relieving order but, from perusal of Annexure-3 of the writ application, it is clear that his joining could not be accepted by the Executive Engineer, Siwan due to non-relieving letter. 6 was field mainly raising a question that after revocation of suspension it was not necessary to issue any relieving order but, from perusal of Annexure-3 of the writ application, it is clear that his joining could not be accepted by the Executive Engineer, Siwan due to non-relieving letter. In the writ application, it has been specifically stated that after transfer order dated 24.09.1996, petitioner continued in the Office of Director, Ground Water Directorate, Bihar, Patna because he was not relieved inspite of his request made to the respondent Authorities. However, the Secretary of the Department called him and again orally directed without any relieving order to go to join at Siwan and on his direction, the petitioner submitted joining on 26.09.1998 which was also not accepted by the Executive Engineer, Siwan and thereafter, on 16.12.1998 vide Annexure-4, the Deputy Secretary issued letter to the Executive Engineer, Siwan to accept his joining without any relieving order on the ground that after revocation of suspension on transfer, relieving order is not required and accordingly, vide Annexure-4, he directed the petitioner to join at Siwan and also directed the Executive Engineer, Siwan to accept his joining with information to the Department. Thus, it is clear that from 07.10.1996 when the letter no. 5575 dated 24.09.1996 was handed over to the petitioner till 16.12.1998, no relieving letter was issued, hence, for this period, the petitioner remained in head Quarter and is entitled to the full salary from 13.08.1996 on which date the Hon’ble Court revoked the suspension order till 18.12.1998 on which date the letter contained at Annexure - 4 was received by the petitioner on 18.12.1998.” 6. On perusal of Annexure - ‘1’ to the writ petition i.e. a copy of order dated 13.8.1996 passed in CWJC No. 8068 of 1995 it is evident that suspension order of the petitioner was quashed and direction was issued that petitioner shall be entitled to full salary from the date of order i.e. order dated 13th August 1996. It is also a fact that in compliance with the order of the writ court immediately petitioner approached the Office of Respondent No. 5. It is also not in dispute that no relieving order was issued permitting the petitioner to join the new place at Siwan. It is also a fact that in compliance with the order of the writ court immediately petitioner approached the Office of Respondent No. 5. It is also not in dispute that no relieving order was issued permitting the petitioner to join the new place at Siwan. The stand taken by the petitioner that in absence of relieving order he was orally asked to join the new place is corroborated on perusal of Annexure-‘3’ to the writ petition which suggests that the Executive Engineer had refused to accept his joining in absence of relieving order. Of-course subsequently by way of issuance of Annexure-‘4’ the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Siwan was directed to accept his joining even in absence of relieving order and only thereafter, the petitioner could join his new place. Now the question for consideration is as to whether the period from 13.8.1996 to 18.12.1998 should be considered as period of unauthorized absence or the petitioner shall be considered to be on the post at Patna itself. To decide this issue it would be appropriate to quote the Government Instruction which indicates that after the order of transfer it is duty of the controlling authority to relieve an officer/employee within 15 days from the date of transfer. To decide this issue it would be appropriate to quote the Government Instruction which indicates that after the order of transfer it is duty of the controlling authority to relieve an officer/employee within 15 days from the date of transfer. The notification is quoted hereinbelow:- ^^dkfeZd ,oa iz'kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx] i= la[;k 1 ih0&3037@81 dk0&3399] fnukad 16 ekpZ] 1981 dh izfrfyfiA fo"k;% ljdkjh lsod ds LFkkukUrj.k@inLFkkiu ds laca/k esa uhfr ,oa izfdz;k dk vuqikyuA Eakf=eaMy lfpoky; ,oa leUo; foHkkx ds ladYi la[;k 3918] fnukad 25 vDVwcj] 1980 }kjk ljdkjh lsodksa ds inLFkkiu@LFkkukUrj.k dh uhfr fu:fir dh x;h gS vkSj ljdkj dk lqfuf'pr er gS fd bldk n`<rkiwoZd ikyu gksA bl ladYi esa ljdkj dk Li"V funsZ'k gS fd fu;a=.k inkf/kdkjh vius v/khuLFk inkf/kdkfj;ksa ds LFkkukUrj.k@inLFkkiu vkns'k izkIr gksus ij mUgsa vfoyEc fojfer dj nsaxsA 2- ljdkj ds le{k vusd n`"Vkar vk;s gSa ftuesa ljdkjh lsod LFkkukURkj.k vkns'k fuxZr gksus dh yEch vof/k ds ckn Hkh fojfer ugha fd;s x;s gSaA Li"V gS fd LFkkukUrj.k laca/kh vkns'kksa ds dk;kZUo;u esa f'kfFkyrk ds QyLo:Ik iz'kklfud tfVyrk,W mRiUu gksrh gSa vkSj ljdkjh lsodksa esa vuq'kklughurk c<rh gS ljdkj fpfUrr gS fd lHkh fu;a=.k inkf/kdkjh LFkkukUrj.k vkns'kksa dk vuqikyu lqfuf'pr djsa ,oa vius v/khuLFk inkf/kdkfj;ksa dks vkns'k izkIr gksrs gh fojfer dj nsaA LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k dks izHkkoh cukus dk eq[; mRrjnkf;Ro fu;a=.k inkf/kdkfj;ksa ij gh gSA fu;a=.k inkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk v/khuLFk inkf/kdkfj;ksa ds LFkkukUrj.k ds jksd esa fnypLih fn[kykuk loZFkk vuqfpr gSA dHkh&dHkh fu;a=.k inkf/kdkjh }kjk bl ckr ij Hkh cy fn;k tkrk gS fd tc rd LFkkukUrfjr inkf/kdkjh ds izfrLFkkuh ;ksxnku ugha nsrs gSa] rc rd os vius v/khuLFk LFkkukUrfjr inkf/kdkjh dks fojfer djus esa vleFkZ gSaA pwWafd LFkkukUrj.k dh J`a[kyk gksrh gS] vxj fu;a=.k inkf/kdkjh izfrLFkkuh ds ;ksxnku ds iwoZ LFkkukUrfjr inkf/kdkjh dks fojfer ugha djsaxs rks LFkkukUrj.k dh J`a[kyk vo:) gks tk;sxh vkSj LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k izHkkoh ugha gks Ikk;sxhA vr% lHkh fu;a=.k inkf/kdkfj;ksa ls vuqjks/k gS fd os vius v/khuLFk inkf/kdkfj;ksa dks LFkkukUrj.k@inLFkkiu vkns'k izkIr gksus ij ,d i{k ds vUnj inkf/kdkjh dks fuf'pr :Ik ls fofjfer dj nsaA ;fn dksbZ fu;a=.k inkf/kdkjh bl vkns'k ds foijhr dk;Z djsaxs rks ljdkj dks ck/; gksdj ,sls fu;a=.k inkf/kdkjh ds fo:) dkjZokbZ djuh iMsxhA 3- LFkkukUrfjr inkf/kdkfj;ksa ls ;g vis{kk dh tkrh gS fd os vius fu;a=.k inkf/kdkjh dk vkns'k izkIr dj u;s inHkkj xzg.k djus dh fn'kk esa fojfer gksus ds fy, vfoyEc dkjZokbZ djsaA vxj dksbZ ljdkjh inkf/kdkjh LFkkukUrj.k@inLFkkiu vkns'k dk vuqikyu fuxZr gksus ds ckn ,d eghus ds vUnj u;s inLFkkiu indk;ZHkkj xzg.k ugha djsaxs rks muds fo:) iz'kklfud dkjZokbZ dh tk;sxhA 4- fu;a=.k inkf/kdkfj;ksa dks ;g Hkh vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd vxj dksbZ inkf/kdkjh LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k ds foQy djus ds mns'; ls vodk'k dk vkosnu miLFkkfir djrs gSa rks fu;a=.k inkf/kdkjh mls Lohdkj ugha djsaA 5- ;fn dksbZ inkf/kdkjh vkns'k fuxZr gksus ds 3 fnuksa ds vUnj izHkkj ugha lkSairs gSa rks LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k gksus ds rhl fnuksa ds Ik'pkr~ Lor% ls fojfer le>s tk,Wxs vkSj dks"kkxkj inkf/kdkjh mDr frfFk ls inkf/kdkjh dk osru Hkqxrku cUn dj nsaxs vkSj mlh vk/kkj ij mDr inkf/kdkjh dk vafre osru izek.k&i= rS;kj djsaxsaA 6- bldh izfrfyfi egkys[kkdkj] fcgkj] iVuk dks Hkh nh tk jgh gSA 7- bu vuqns'kksa ls vius v/khuLFk inkf/kdkfj;ksa dks Hkh voxr dj nsaA** 7. In view of Government Instruction itself it is evident that relieving order after issuance of transfer was mandatory. Once there was mandatory provision for issuance of relieving order it can be considered that in absence of relieving order the petitioner rightly continued in the office of Respondent No. 5. The stand of the petitioner that he was denied joining in absence of relieving order is further corroborated from Annexure-‘3’ to the writ petition which was issued by the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Siwan whereby in absence of relieving order the petitioner was not allowed joining. Joining of the petitioner was accepted only in view of Annexure-‘4’ to the writ petition. It appears that in exceptional manner in absence of relieving order the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances, was allowed to join his new place at Siwan. Accordingly, the Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner may not be denied his full salary for the period claimed in the present writ petition. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances the writ petition stands allowed. The Order contained in Annexure-‘6’ is set aside with a direction to the Respondents to take all steps to pay the due salary of the petitioner from 13.8.1996 to 18.12.1998 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. The writ petition stands allowed.