ORDER : The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer on temporary basis at UAS, Bengaluru. His services came to be regularized on 15.6.1982. Thereafter, he was posted to work at RRS, Dharwad. While so working at Dharwad, he was transferred to Raichur, which was also part of 2nd respondent. At that point of time, the first respondent Government of Karnataka issued circular permitting exercise of option either to continue in the newly established UAS at Raichur or to get transfer to Dharwad. On the option exercised, the first respondent permitted the petitioner to relieve from Raichur and to report at Dharwad Agricultural University. It was found that there was no vacancy in Dharwad UAS. Hence the petitioner was not permitted to report at Dharwad for duty. In turn the Dharwad University requested the first respondent to crate a supernumerary post so that petitioner could be accommodated. No such permission was also accorded and petitioner was not permitted to report at Dharwad. In the meanwhile, the petitioner attained age of superannuation and retired. The period spent without posting at Dharwad is directed to be treated as leave at credit. Aggrieved by which the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in such circumstances, the period spent at Dharwad is to be treated as per Rule 8(15)(f) of the KCSR and the period has to be treated as a duty for the purpose of all consequential benefits. 3. The learned counsel for the third respondent Raichur University submits that the first respondent directed to relieve the petitioner and accordingly third respondent has relieved him. Hence there cannot be anything attributable to the third respondent. The learned counsel for Dharwad University submits that no vacancy was available and therefore the petitioner could not be accommodated. Further it wrote to the first respondent to permit to create supenumerary post. The learned counsel for the first respondent submits that in a case of this nature, the period has to be treated as per Rule 76(3) of KCSR as a joining time which is extendable and so also Rule 88 of KCSR. Hence the learned counsel seeks to dismiss the writ petition. 4. On the facts, it is clear that omission is on the 2nd 3rd part of the first respondent than the and respondents. Circulars were issued permitting the petitioner to exercise option. Hence the learned counsel seeks to dismiss the writ petition. 4. On the facts, it is clear that omission is on the 2nd 3rd part of the first respondent than the and respondents. Circulars were issued permitting the petitioner to exercise option. Accordingly, the petitioner exercised option which has been accepted by the Government. He was transferred from Raichur to Dharwad, however without verifying vacancy position at Dharwad. It is under these circumstances, it is the responsibility and duty of the first respondent to see that the petitioner should get the benefits which he would have got had he reported for duty at Dharwad. The submission of the respondents either extension of joining time or overstaying on the part of the petitioner as sought by the respondents. The petitioner in fact went but he was not permitted on the ground of non existence of vacancy. 5. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The first respondent is directed to treat the period spent by the petitioner at Dharwad as duty in terms of Rule 8(15)(f) of KCSR and settle the consequential benefits including terminal benefits accordingly. Annexures-X & Y are quashed.