JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. C. S. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner who is working in the Department of Fisheries as the Junior Engineer, GradeI has challenged the decisions contained in the letters No.F.16(11)FISH(COURT)/2013-14/3151 dated 19.02.2014, Annexure-9 to the writ petition, No.F.2684(P)/FISH/7706 dated 03.04.2014, Annexure-A/1 to the writ petition and Memorandum No.F.2684(P)/FISH/7810 dated 04.04.2014, Annexure-A/2 to the writ petition. 3. The facts are mostly admitted. The petitioner was transferred by the Office Order No.F.2(214)FISH(ESTT)/2008-09/ P/25680704 dated 04.12.2012, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, from the Office of the Deputy Director of Fisheries, West Tripura, Agartala to the Office of the Deputy Director, Department of Fisheries, Gomti District, Udaipur with the following further direction: “Sri Abhiit Biswas, JE will move first & hand over the complete charges to Sri Kalipada Bhowmik, JE O/o the Dy. Director of Fisheries, West Tripura, Collegetilla, Agartala.” But the petitioner did not join the duty, even though by the Office Order dated 04.12.2012 the petitioner was released w.e.f. 07.12.2012, till 21.01.2013 when the petitioner reported to resume duty in his previous place of posting, after absenting from the duties. 4. On 21.01.2013 itself, the petitioner had asked for two months’ advance pay and travelling allowance as per rule in order to comply the transfer order by making a representation to the Deputy Director of Fisheries, Agartala, Annexure3 to the writ petition. The said joining report and the prayer for advance pay and TA etc. dated 21.01.2013 were returned to the petitioner by a letter under No.F.1(18)DDF(W)/Estt/2006-07/10607 dated 28.01.2013, Annexure-4 to the writ petition by the said Deputy Director of Fisheries, West Tripura District, Agartala. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.79 of 2013 which was disposed of by the order dated 03.04.2013. 5. By the said writ petition, the petitioner had urged for directing the respondents to allow him resume his duties in the Office of the Deputy Director of Fisheries, College Tilla, Agartala and to pay him the travelling allowance and the advanced pay towards his joining in the new place of posting at Udaipur in compliance of the transfer order dated 04.12.2012. In the said order dated 03.04.2013, the pleaded case has been recorded as under: “The pleaded case of the petitioner is that while he was on 3 days Casual Leave w.e.f. 05-12-2012 to 07-12-2012, he had received one transfer order dated 04-12-2012 whereby and where under he was transferred from the office of the Deputy Director of Fisheries, College Tilla, West Tripura, Agartala to the office of the Deputy Director of Fisheries, Gumti District, Udaipur. On completion of his Casual Leave on 10-12-2012 again he made a prayer for 27 days commuted leave w.e.f. 05-12-2012 to 31-12-2012, in cancellation of his 3 days casual leave as was applied earlier. After availing the 27 days commuted leave, he again applied for extension of his commuted leave for 19 days w.e.f. 01-01-2013 to 19-01-2013. After availing the commuted leave, he had resumed his duties on 21.01.2013 and while he was preparing papers for handing over his charge to Shri Kalipada Bhowmik, Junior Engineer, as per instruction in the transfer order, on 28-01-2013, the Deputy Director of Fisheries, respondent no.4, had returned his joining report as well as the application for advance pay and TA & DA on the ground that he had already been released by the Director of Fisheries w.e.f. 07-12-2012.” 6. Finally, it has been observed and directed thus: “The petitioner shall join in his place of posting within 7 days from today and he is at liberty to file appropriate application before the appropriate authority and the respondents shall make payment of all his pay and allowances for the working days and the advance pay, TA & DA etc. according to his entitlement within a period of 15 days and he may be allowed to hand over the charge to the officer concerned as mentioned in the transfer order after his joining in the new place of posting” 7. Thereafter, the petitioner by filing a joining report dated 09.04.2013, Annexure-6 to the writ petition, resumed his duties in the new place of posting at Udaipur. In the mean while, the petitioner approached this court for drawing up of proceeding under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act being Cont. Cas. No.08 of 2013 alleging violation, which was finally closed by the order dated 26.08.2013. In the mean while, the petitioner approached this court for drawing up of proceeding under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act being Cont. Cas. No.08 of 2013 alleging violation, which was finally closed by the order dated 26.08.2013. On 07.10.2013, by filing another representation, Annexure-8 to the writ petition, to the Director of Fisheries, Government of Tripura, the petitioner had contended that for nonpayment of TA/the advance pay, which the petitioner is legitimately entitled to get toward compliance of the transfer order, the delay in his joining at the new place of posting had taken place. As such, the period from 21.01.2013 to 08.04.2013 be treated as on duty and his pay and allowances be paid for that period as for no fault on his part, he was prevented from joining in the new place of posting. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner served a demand notice to the respondents on 29.01.2014 and in reply to the said demand notice dated 29.01.2014, the Director of Fisheries, Government of Tripura by his reply dated 19.02.2014, Annexure-9 to the writ petition, has observed as under: “4. Your client has already been paid TA/DA & Advance Pay by his new establishment. As regards pay and allowances for the period from 21-01-2013 to 08-04-13, i.e. the period during which he did not perform any govt. duties and remained absent from duties unauthorisedly and the Hon’ble High Court also did not pass any order to pay him of the said period, the matter has been referred to the Govt. for decision. 5. In fact, Sri Biswas, J.E. was transferred in the interest of Public Service after observing the necessary procedure & formalities. As regards to the demand for cancellation of the transfer order of Sri Biswa, JE dated 04-12-12, it may please be noted that the order has already been implemented as a consequence of which he has also been paid TA/DA & Advance of pay in compliance with the order of Hon’ble High Court in connection with the Case No.W.P.(C) No.79 of 2013. It is a matter of decision of the Govt. to be taken at the appropriate level whether he can be transferred back to the O/O the Dy. It is a matter of decision of the Govt. to be taken at the appropriate level whether he can be transferred back to the O/O the Dy. Director of Fisheries, West, Agartala or elsewhere in the Public interest.” But by the letter dated 03.04.2014, Annexure-A/1 to the writ petition, the Director of Fisheries has communicated the petitioner that the petitioner had been found to be unauthorizedly absent from duties from 21.01.2013 to 08.04.2013. His prayer for treating the period as on duty has not been considered by the Government. Thereafter, by the memorandum under No.F.2684 (P)/FISH/7810 dated 04.04.2014 the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why that period of absence from 21.01.2013 to 08.04.2013 (including 21.01.2013 as suffixed as the petitioner did not legally join on the next working day i.e. 21.01.2013 will not be treated as diesnon without break in service. The petitioner after receipt of that Memorandum simply stated that the matter is subjudiced and he did not make any reply. The petitioner did not make any endeavour for interference of this court by way of an interim order. 8. The respondents by filing the counter affidavit have contended that after receipt of the transfer order which clearly noted that the petitioner shall be treated as released from his place of posting w.e.f. 07.12.2012, the petitioner did not apply for the advance pay, travelling allowance and daily allowance and he went on leave without sanction of the competent authority and attempted to join his previous place of posting after he was released on 07.12.2012. As such, the Deputy Director, West Tripura, Agartala returned the prayer for advance pay, TA/DA and his application for leave for filing the same to the competent authority. There after, the petitioner approached the court and this court did not direct the respondents to make payment of the advance pay, TA/DA as the prerequisite for joining of the petitioner in the new place of posting. Rather, the petitioner was directed to join within 7 days from the date of the said order. The petitioner, however, had joined within the said stipulated period and claimed for treating that period from 21.01.2013 to 08.04.2013 as spent on duty as he did not receive the advance pay or TA and DA for the said transfer. However, later on the advance pay, TA and DA was paid to the petitioner. 9. The petitioner, however, had joined within the said stipulated period and claimed for treating that period from 21.01.2013 to 08.04.2013 as spent on duty as he did not receive the advance pay or TA and DA for the said transfer. However, later on the advance pay, TA and DA was paid to the petitioner. 9. According to the respondents that the petitioner without having any proper sanction of leave had absented from the duty to frustrate the transfer order but ultimately he could not achieve his object for the order dated 03.04.2013 delivered in W.P.(C) No.79 of 2013. The petitioner was show caused why the petitioner’s unauthorized absence from the duty shall not be treated as diesnot without break in service. The petitioner even did not reply. In the Para20 of the counter affidavit, filed by the respondents on 21.06.2014, it has been contended that: “on 19-02-2014 the Director of Fisheries rightly issued a communication to the Ld. Counsel of the petitioner to the fact that, the petitioner has already been paid TA/DA & Advance pay in connection with the transfer as per eligibility. The period from 21-01-2013 to 08-04-2013 the petitioner did not perform any Government duties and remained absent from duties un-authorizedly. Therefore, the claim regarding the pay and allowances during the period of absent (sic) from 21-01-2013 to 08-04-2013 the petitioner is not entitle to get. The writ petition have (sic) no right accrued to get the pay and allowances during the period of unauthorised absent (sic). The Director of Fisheries, Tripura rightly issued communication dated 19-02-2014.” 10. What appears from the rival contentions as well as from the records available with the writ petition, the counter affidavit, the additional counter affidavit, the rejoinder is that the grievance of the petitioner hinges on the definite finding given by the Director of Fisheries in his reply dated 19.02.2014, Annexure-9 to the writ petition and form the observation in the memorandum dated 04.04.2014 to the effect that the petitioner was found to be unauthorizedly absent from duties from 21.01.2013 to 08.04.2013. According to the petitioner, the said period cannot be treated as unauthorizedly absent from the duty and hence the proposed affliction that the said period will be treated as diesnot without break in service is preposterous and unwarranted in the circumstances of the case inasmuch as the respondents are responsible in creating deterrence in joining in the new place of posting by the petitioner, by withholding the advance pay and TA/DA on which the petitioner had the legitimate right. 11. Mr. C. S. Sinha, learned counsel has further submitted that no final order has yet been passed. But those findings are of the final nature and as such those are required to be interfered with Mr. Sinha, learned counsel having referred to the Rule 222 and Rule 223 of the General Financial Rules and submitted that the petitioner was entitled to get the advance pay and the travelling allowances for proceeding on transfer. For purpose of reference, Rule 222 and Rule 223 are extracted hereunder: “222. Powers of sanction A Head of Office may sanction advances of pay and travelling allowance to a permanent or temporary Government servant who, while on duty or on leave, is required to proceed on transfer. 223. Amount of Advance The amount of advance which may be sanctioned to a Government servant under this section shall not exceed- (a) one month’s pay which he is in receipt of immediately before transfer, or one month’s pay to which he will be entitled after transfer, whichever is less; or (b) two months’ pay in the case of a Government servant in an office the headquarters of which is shifted as a result of Government policy; and (c) in addition to the amount of advance specified in clause (a) or clause (b), the amount of travelling allowance to which he may be entitled in consequence of his transfer.” 12. From a bare perusal of those provisions of Rules 222 and 223 of the General Financial Rules, it would appear that on prayer the transferred employee may receive the advance pay and travelling allowance/daily allowance. There is no legal bar to disburse such amount in the new station after joining of the Government servant there, on production of the last pay certificate, showing that no advance was drawn at the old station. There is no legal bar to disburse such amount in the new station after joining of the Government servant there, on production of the last pay certificate, showing that no advance was drawn at the old station. What has exactly happened in this case Since the petitioner without any previous sanction went on the commuted leave till 19.01.2013 from 05.12.2013 and during that period of leave he was released from his previous place of posting and the Dy. Director, West Tripura, Agartala did return the prayer for sanction of leave as well as the prayer for advance pay and TA/DA. Even the petitioner did not succeed in securing any favourable order from this court. 13. Having regard to this special circumstances as emerged in this case, this court is of the view that declaring a period of absence as diesnon without break in service, is within the ambit of Rule 24 of the Tripura State Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1986. For purpose of reference, the Rule 24 of the said Rules is extracted hereunder: “24. Absence after expiry of leave. (1) Unless the authority competent to grant leave extends the leave, a Government servant who remains absent after the end of leave is entitled to no leave salary for the period of such absence and that period shall be debited against his leave account as though it were half pay leave, to the extent such leave is due, the period in excess of such leave due being treated as extraordinary leave. (2) Wilful absence from duty after the expiry of leave renders a Government servant liable to disciplinary action.” In the considered opinion of this court, the diesnon in such circumstances can only be declared if the period of absence is not covered by the grant of leave and if such period is covered by the grant of leave as provided by Rule 24(1). Usually, the respondents shall not declare a period diesnon without break in service. 14. Having regard to this aspect of the legal position and in the context of the case, the respondents are directed to regularise the period of absence from 21.01.2013 to 08.04.2013 in term of Rule 24(1) of the Tripura State Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1986. Usually, the respondents shall not declare a period diesnon without break in service. 14. Having regard to this aspect of the legal position and in the context of the case, the respondents are directed to regularise the period of absence from 21.01.2013 to 08.04.2013 in term of Rule 24(1) of the Tripura State Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1986. From the leave account of the petitioner, the leave shall be debited for the said period for purpose of regularisation and if the absence is not covered by the credited leave including the half pay leave to the extent such leave is due, the period in excess of such absence shall be regularised by providing extraordinary leave. Accordingly, the further action in terms of the impugned letters dated 19.02.2014, 03.04.2014 and memorandum dated 04.04.2014 shall not be taken against the petitioner. The action should be restricted as indicated above. Accordingly, the writ petition stands partly allowed and disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.