JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. B.P.Sahu, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S.Jyotibala, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. H.S.Paonam, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Harichyaya, learned counsel for the respondents, NHPC. 2. These two writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment and order considering the commonality of the facts and issues involved and the reliefs claimed in both the writ petitions. 3. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have sought for a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order or direction to be issued to the respondents authorities to release the pay and allowances of the petitioners for the period from 7.11.2005 to 11.7.2006 within a stipulated period. 4. Certain facts, in brief, are referred to decide the cases at hand. The petitioners at the relevant time were holding the posts of Master Technician (Mech) Grade-II and Assistant Grade-II respectively and were posted at the Loktak Power Station of the National Hydro Power Corporation Ltd. The petitioners along with others were transferred from Loktak Power Station and posted to various projects vide transfer order dated 23.9.2005 issued by the Chief (HR) Estt. Loktak Power Station. The petitioners were transferred and posted at Siyom HE Project, NHPC and Subansiri Upper HE Project, NHPC respectively and accordingly were released on 6.10.2005 to enable them to join their new places of posting. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid transfer order, the Workers Unions submitted representations to the authorities for recalling the said transfer order. However, as no positive action was taken, the petitioners along with others jointly filed a writ petition being W.P(C) No. 1370 of 2005 before the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench. The said writ petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 16.06.2006 allowing the petition as far as the two petitioners are concerned. The effective part of the order at para No.14 is reproduced herein below:- “14. For the reasons discussed above, this Court is of the considered view (sic) that an interference to the transfer order and posting of the writ petitioners 1 and 2 under the impugned transfer and posting order dated 23.9.2005 is called for. Accordingly, impugned transfer and posting order dated 23.9.2005 so far as the petitioners 1 and 2 are concerned are hereby quashed and set aside. Writ petition is allowed accordingly. Accordingly, impugned transfer and posting order dated 23.9.2005 so far as the petitioners 1 and 2 are concerned are hereby quashed and set aside. Writ petition is allowed accordingly. Parties have to bear their own costs.” It is the case of the petitioners that at the time of filing the said writ petition, the Hon’ble Court also passed an interim order on 19.12.2005 directing that “Pending disposal of the present writ petition no punitive action shall be taken against the petitioners”. 5. After disposal of the said writ petition, being W.P(C) No.1370 of 2005 vide order dated 16.6.2006 by which the aforesaid transfer order dated 23.09.2005 was set aside, the petitioners submitted their joining report to the Chief Engineer, Loktak Power Station on 28.6.2006 praying for allowing them to resume duties in the Loktak Power Station. The petitioners state that after filing of a Contempt Petition, the respondent authorities vide order dated 12.7.2006 provisionally accepted the joining report of the petitioners submitted on 28.6.2006. It is the case of the petitioners that since the aforesaid transfer order had been set aside by the Hon’ble Court in W.P(C) No.1370 of 2005, the petitioners are entitled to enjoy the pay and allowances for the period from 7.11.2005 to 11.7.2006 which had not been paid to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 6. The respondent authorities have filed an affidavit-in-opposition denying the allegations. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 26.7.2013, it had been stated that as the Writ Appeal being W.A. No.25 of 2006 preferred against the judgment and order dated 16.6.2006 passed in W.P(C) No.1370 of 2005 was pending and subjudice, the relief claimed in the writ petition cannot be granted. It may be noted that the said writ appeal was disposed of as infructuoius on 2.09.2014. Further, it has been also stated that even during the pendency of the Writ Appeal No.25 of 2006, the management of the NHPC respondents authorities had decided to regularise the period of absence of the petitioners w.e.f. 7.11.2005 to 11.7.2006 by sanction of leave of any kind due at the leave account provisionally. However, the petitioners refused to accept the same and instead requested the authority to treat the period of absence by the petitioners w.e.f. 7.11.2005 to 11.7.2006 on duty. However, the petitioners refused to accept the same and instead requested the authority to treat the period of absence by the petitioners w.e.f. 7.11.2005 to 11.7.2006 on duty. It is the case of the respondent authorities that it is an undisputed fact that during the aforesaid period, the petitioners had not discharged any official duty and hence, by application of the principle of “No work no pay”, the petitioners are not entitled to any pay for the aforesaid period claimed by the petitioners. 7. Mr.H.S.Paonam, learned senior counsel for the respondent authorities further clarified that even though the said writ petition, W.P(C) No.1370 of 2005 was allowed by the Court setting aside the transfer order, the Court did not, while disposing of the said writ petition on 16.6.2006, grant the relief claimed by the petitioners in the said writ petition for directing the respondents authorities to allow the petitioners to continue to serve at the place of posting prior to the issuance of the transfer order nor did not pass any order of suspension of the transfer order. It has been submitted that the release order issued on 6.10.2005 pursuant to the said transfer order dated 23.9.2005 was not stayed and as such, the petitioners were supposed to join duty at the transferred places till the disposal of the writ petition. In that view of the matter, as no effective relief was granted by the Hon’ble Court in the said writ petition, the petitioners were supposed to join their place of posting which they did not and as such they are not entitled to the pay and allowances for the said period as they had not discharged any official duty at the relevant time. It has been stated that pursuant to the interim order passed by the Hon’ble Court in the said writ petition directing that no punitive action be taken against the petitioners, the authorities did not proceed with any disciplinary proceeding against the petitioners nor took any punitive action. On the other hand, since the petitioners did not render any service, the petitioners were offered to adjust the said period of absence against the permissible leave which the petitioners declined to do so. 8. On the other hand, since the petitioners did not render any service, the petitioners were offered to adjust the said period of absence against the permissible leave which the petitioners declined to do so. 8. This contention of the respondents, however, has been objected by the petitioners on the ground that non-payment of salary for the aforesaid period actually amounts to penal action as it is deprivation of the right of the petitioners to receive salary which they were entitled to and deprivation of pay and allowances for the aforesaid period is not permissible without resorting to any departmental proceeding. In other words, deprivation of pay and allowances for the aforesaid period amounts to penalising the petitioners and hence, it is not only against the interim order passed by the Hon’ble Court but also against the service jurisprudence. This objection, however, has been clarified by the learned senior counsel for the respondent authorities contending that non payment of salary for the aforesaid period is not a penal action but it is merely the consequential result for non-attendance of duty and as far as non-attendance of duty is concerned, it is not in dispute as the petitioners themselves had stated in the writ petitions that they were allowed to resume their duty w.e.f. 28.6.2006. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials on record. 10. The issue involved in these writ petitions is about the nonpayment of pay and allowances for the period from 7.11.2005 to 11.7.2006 which is the period of litigation before this Court after the petitioners were relived to join the new place of posting which the petitioners claim to be lawfully entitled, which the respondent authorities claim the petitioners are not entitled to as they did not render any service at that time, till the time of setting aside of the transfer order and were allowed to resume duties. The problem for the petitioners, as mentioned above started with the passing of the transfer order on 23.9.2005 which is the genesis of the issue at hand. True, there was no interim stay of the transfer order passed by the Hon’ble Court staying the transfer order and hence, the petitioners were supposed to proceed to the new places of posting, yet, the fact remains that the transfer order was interfered with by the Court setting aside the said transfer order. True, there was no interim stay of the transfer order passed by the Hon’ble Court staying the transfer order and hence, the petitioners were supposed to proceed to the new places of posting, yet, the fact remains that the transfer order was interfered with by the Court setting aside the said transfer order. Therefore, this Court has to examine as to the consequence of the order passed by the Court on 16.6.2006 in the said writ petition, W.P(C) No.1370 of 2005. If the transfer order is set aside for whatever reasons, the natural consequence will be that they shall be deemed to have been not transferred. In that view of the matter, normally a person who had been transferred ought to be given the service benefits under the rules unless the Court specifically clarifies to the contrary. As regards the consequential benefits, the order of the Court is silent. Therefore, only such benefits which are incidental to and which flow naturally from the order of the Court have to be granted. In other words, the benefits which are natural and incidentally flow from the quashing of the transfer order have to be also granted to the petitioners. If that is so, this Court has to examine as to what are the natural or incidental consequences of the setting aside of the transfer order. One such incidental consequence will be that the service of the petitioners cannot be considered to have been discontinued as it shall be deemed that the transfer order was not issued at all and they would be entitled to have remained in the earlier places of posting. The order of release, since is directly based on the transfer order, will have no effect once the transfer order itself is set aside. In that event, the other natural corollary would be that the petitioners would be normally entitled to other service benefits including pay and allowances. However, there is also another well established principle in service jurisprudence that even if a person continues in service, if he has not indeed rendered any actual service, the principle of “No work no pay” can be invoked. In the present case, therefore, this Court will examine whether such a principle can be invoked. As mentioned above, the transfer order was issued by the respondents authorities directing the petitioners to move from their present places of posting. In the present case, therefore, this Court will examine whether such a principle can be invoked. As mentioned above, the transfer order was issued by the respondents authorities directing the petitioners to move from their present places of posting. Therefore, that direction was issued at the instance of the respondent authorities and if there is any movement, it is at the instance of the respondents authorities and not at the instance of the petitioners. It is not the case of the respondents that petitioners had gone on leave on their own violation and had overstayed, in which event, perhaps, this principle of “No work no pay” could be applied for the period of absence or non discharge of duty. However, in the present case, the petitioners, though, were directed to move after being released pursuant to the transfer order, it was not on their account but on account of the respondent authorities. Therefore, it would be unfair to apply the principle of “No work no pay” and deny the benefits of salary entirely even if the petitioners did not render any active duty during the aforesaid period. As mentioned above, this absence is not because of the petitioners but on account of the transfer order issued by the respondent authorities which was later set aside by this Court. The effect of setting aside the transfer order is that, it is invalid and nonexistent as far as the petitioners are concerned. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if these two principles are reconciled in the present facts and circumstances of the case and direct the respondents authorities to pay 50% of the entitled pay and allowances to the petitioners for the aforesaid period i.e. w.e.f. 7.11.2005 to 11.7.2006. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondents pay to the petitioners 50% of the entitled pay and allowances for the aforesaid period from 7.11.2005 to 11.07.2006 which shall be paid within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 11. With the above observation and direction, these writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above.