JUDGMENT : D.P. Choudhury, J. Challenge has been made to the inaction of the opposite party no.2-Managing Director, Odisha Co-operative Tassar & Silk Federation Limited (in short “SERIFED”) in not releasing the arrear salary of the petitioner for the period from 01.07.2012 to 24.09.2014. 2. FACTS The factual matrix leading to the writ petition is that the petitioner is a regular employee working under the opposite party no.2 as a Manager. Since he was at the fag end of his service, he made a representation on 07.04.2010 to the opposite party no.2 requesting for his transfer to his home district or to other place of his choice. The opposite party no.2, instead of transferring the petitioner to a place of his choice, transferred him to Mahendragarh in Gajapati district against which the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.14011 of 2010 before this Court praying for cancellation of the transfer order and this Court, vide order dated 05.04.2012, directed to maintain status quo by retaining him in the branch of Lahunipada and finally the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 15.05.2012 directing the opposite party to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner within a period of one month and for a period of one month, the petitioner shall not be disturbed from Lahunipada Branch. 3. Be it stated that, instead of the order passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 14011 of 2010, the opposite party no.2 disposed of the representation of the petitioner dated 18.06.2012 and again posted the petitioner at Mahendragarh Branch and directed him to hand over the charges to one Sri G.S. Mohanta, Assistant Manager, who was earlier posted at Lahunipada branch temporarily. Again the petitioner made a representation to the opposite party no.1, but since no order was passed on the said representation, he filed another writ petition before this Court, i.e., W.P. (C) No. 11650 of 2012 and this Court, vide order dated 10.07.2012, passed order to maintain status quo as an interim measure. The petitioner made further representation to the opposite party no.1 on 28.01.2013 ventilating his grievances, but the opposite party no.2, being vindictive to the petitioner, did not release his salary from July, 2012 onwards. Since the petitioner faced financial hardship to maintain his family, he made a representation again to opposite party no.2 on 21.11.2013 to release his salary. The petitioner made further representation to the opposite party no.1 on 28.01.2013 ventilating his grievances, but the opposite party no.2, being vindictive to the petitioner, did not release his salary from July, 2012 onwards. Since the petitioner faced financial hardship to maintain his family, he made a representation again to opposite party no.2 on 21.11.2013 to release his salary. When the opposite party no.2 insisted the petitioner to join in his office after which he would consider his claim for release of arrear salary, the petitioner joined the office of opposite party no.2 on 25.09.2014 and on the same date, an office order was issued directing the petitioner to hand over the charge of Lahunipada Branch to Sri Mohanata on or before 30.09.2014. 4. Be it further stated that W.P.(C) No.11650 of 2012 was disposed of by this Court on 09.02.2015 as infructuous as the petitioner in the meantime has joined the office of opposite party no.2. But the release of salary of the petitioner could not be decided for which the petitioner again made a representation to the opposite party no.2 for release of arrear salary for the period from July, 2012 to 24.09.2014, but the opposite party no.2 refused to grant the same on the ground that Sri G.S. Mohanta has already joined that post and worked for the aforesaid period and the petitioner being deemed to have been relieved and did not work for those period purportedly as Manager, he is not entitled to the arrear salary on the principle of “no work no pay”. The petitioner challenged the words “deemed relieved” on the ground that there is no order of relieve at all passed by the opposite party no.2 for which the petitioner cannot be said to have been relieved from duty at Lahunipada branch. On the other hand, the petitioner claims to have worked for that period. So, the instant writ petition is filed to quash the impugned order vide Annexure-19 with a further prayer to direct the opposite party no.2 to release the arrear salary of the petitioner for the period from July, 2012 to September, 2014 as indicated in Annexure-18. 5. SUBMISSIONS Mr. So, the instant writ petition is filed to quash the impugned order vide Annexure-19 with a further prayer to direct the opposite party no.2 to release the arrear salary of the petitioner for the period from July, 2012 to September, 2014 as indicated in Annexure-18. 5. SUBMISSIONS Mr. Rabinarayan Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is for the third time the petitioner has come to this Court seeking direction because of the harassment meted out by the opposite party no.2 in spite of repeated order of this Court passed from time to time. While the petitioner was working at Lauhunipada Branch as a Manager, he made representation for transfer in any place near his house as he was supposed to retire in 2016 and he has already spent fourteen years in KBK belt. The Resolution dated 16.08.2001 of the General Administration Department is very clear to the effect that an employee who has been posted in the district of KBK areas and completed three years of service there excluding the period of leave, he can choose posting of his choice. In spite of the said instruction of the General Administration Department, the petitioner was posted illegally to Mahendragarh under KBK district. 6. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that challenging the order of his transfer, the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.14011 of 2010 and vide order dated 5.4.2012, this Court passed interim order of status quo, but subsequently on 15.05.2012, the opposite party was asked to consider the representation of the petitioner by posting him as per his choice purportedly as envisaged under the aforesaid Resolution of the General Administration Department and in that order, this Court also directed not to disturb the petitioner for a period of one month from Lauhinipada Branch. He further stated that violating such order, opposite party no.2, on 26.06.2012 again transferred the petitioner to Silk Reeling and Twisting Centre (SRTC), Mahendragarh for six months and directed to impart training to the concerned employees there. In that order, the petitioner was directed to hand over the charge of Lahunipada branch to Sri G.S. Mohanta, Assistant Manager. He further stated that violating such order, opposite party no.2, on 26.06.2012 again transferred the petitioner to Silk Reeling and Twisting Centre (SRTC), Mahendragarh for six months and directed to impart training to the concerned employees there. In that order, the petitioner was directed to hand over the charge of Lahunipada branch to Sri G.S. Mohanta, Assistant Manager. Since the order of this Court has not been followed by not posting the petitioner at place of his choice and he instead of being relieved but only directed to hand over the charge to Sri Mohanta earlier as Assistant Manager, the petitioner continued there from July, 2012. 7. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in spite of the representation of the petitioner and the letter of the Government vide Annexure-9 to the opposite party no.2 to inform the status of the representation of the petitioner, the opposite party no.2 remained silent and finally the petitioner had to file another writ petition before this Court vide W.P.(C) No.11650 of 2012 praying for a direction to release the arrear salary for the same period, as prayed for in the present writ petition. This Court, vide order dated 09.02.2015, disposed of the said writ petition as infructuous as the petitioner had already joined the office of opposite party no.2 in 2014 and in that order, the opposite party no.2 was also directed to consider the case of the petitioner for payment of his arrear salary. The opposite party no.2 having paid no heed to the order of this Court, but only disposed of the representation of the petitioner by stating that the petitioner is not entitled to any salary for the disputed period on the ground of “no work no pay”. Thus, the same is assailed in the present writ petition as illegal. 8. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner further advanced his argument by stating that there is neither departmental proceeding nor any inquiry started against the petitioner to show his absence as unauthorized during that period for which the principle of “no work no pay” would be applicable to the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner has worked for those disputed period at Lahunipada branch without being relieved by any order of opposite party no.2 although Sri Mohanta was working being in charge of separate work for which the question of “no work no pay” arises. According to him, the petitioner has worked for those disputed period at Lahunipada branch without being relieved by any order of opposite party no.2 although Sri Mohanta was working being in charge of separate work for which the question of “no work no pay” arises. The order of the opposite party no.2 being bias, illegal and unjust, should be quashed and the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, be awarded the arrear salary for the said period. 9. Mr. Biswajit Nayak, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, by referring to the counter affidavit of opposite party no.2, submitted that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts in order to cover up his mistake because for the public interest, the petitioner was transferred from Lahunipada Branch to Mahendragrah Branch vide order dated 31.07.2010, but the petitioner got the order from this Court in W.P.(C) No.14011 of 2010 to consider his representation dated 07.04.2010 within a period of one month. According to him, the order of this Court has been thoroughly followed and after one month from the date of passing the order by this Court, the petitioner was again transferred to Mahendragarh for six months vide order dated 20.06.2012. But, the petitioner did not prefer to join there. Sri G.S. Mohanta, being successor of the petitioner, joined at Lahunipada and assumed the charge and as such, the petitioner is deemed to have been relieved. According to him, since there is one post and the petitioner neither joined in his new place of posting nor submitted any application for leave, the opposite party no.2 noted his absence in duty and finally after long unauthorized absence, the petitioner joined the main office on 25.09.2014 on being unsuccessful in W.P.(C) No.11650 of 2012. Since the petitioner had not worked for the period from July, 2012 to September, 2014, his absence was taken as unauthorized and it is well settled that there cannot be any pay when there is no work performed by employee. As such, a long leave of absence by the petitioner carried unauthorizedly cannot be regularized in absence of any application for which the petitioner is not entitled to get any salary against such absence. So, he submitted to dismiss the writ petition. 10. As such, a long leave of absence by the petitioner carried unauthorizedly cannot be regularized in absence of any application for which the petitioner is not entitled to get any salary against such absence. So, he submitted to dismiss the writ petition. 10. POINT FOR DETERMINATION The main point for consideration is as to whether the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from duty for the period from 01.07.2012 to 24.09.2014? 11. DISCUSSIONS It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working under the opposite party no.2. It is also not in dispute that he was posted at Lahunipada branch in KBK district. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner had made representation vide Annexure-1 requesting for his transfer to a place of his choice since he has already worked for fourteen years in KBK areas. No doubt, the Resolution dated 16.08.2001 of the General Administration Department is also a policy of transfer for the persons working in KBK areas. Said Resolution is also undisputed for carrying the principle of transfer. 12. It appears from the Office Order dated 15.05.2010 (Annexure-3) that in spite of the representation of the petitioner, he was directed to take over charge of Mahendragarh branch in addition to his duty of Lahunipada branch. Thus, the representation of the petitioner remained as such for the reasons not assigned in the Office Order vide Annexure-3. However, the order of this Court dated 05.04.2012 shows that the petitioner was allowed to continue in Lahunipada, if he has not been relieved in the meantime and subsequently on 15.05.2012 final order was passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.14011 of 2010 directing the opposite party no.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner about his place of posting of his choice and till one month, he should not be disturbed from Lahunipada branch. 13. The Office Order vide Annexure-5 shows that on 20.06.2012, which is just after one month of the order passed by this Court, the opposite party no.2 again posted the petitioner at Mahendragarh by directing the petitioner to join there. When this Court had directed to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and the writ petition was purportedly filed to consider the representation to avoid transfer to Mahendragarh, the order passed just after one month cannot be said as impartial one. When this Court had directed to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and the writ petition was purportedly filed to consider the representation to avoid transfer to Mahendragarh, the order passed just after one month cannot be said as impartial one. Moreover, when the petitioner has already worked for fourteen years in KBK areas and the Resolution of the General Administration Department undisputedly shows that the person posted in KBK areas for more than three years excluding the leave period, has got right to claim his transfer on the grounds stated therein at a place of his choice, order of transfer passed on 20.06.2012 is not in accordance with law. There is nothing found from Annexure-5 that the petitioner was transferred in the public interest while considering his representation. Thus, the transfer cannot be said to be with all bona fideness as neither it is in accordance with law as directed by this Court on 15.05.2012 nor it is in the public interest. 14. The contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that Sri G.S. Mohanta has been posted to take over charge from the petitioner as Assistant Manager being his successor is also a topsy turve inasmuch as Annexure-6 shows that Sri Mohanta has already been posted in Lahunipada branch on 24.03.2012 for additional work about distribution of Tasar cocoon by taking over such charge from the petitioner, but the petitioner was allowed to continue in the said branch to look after the civil construction work of SERIFED. But the opposite parties have not refused such fact specifically in the counter. Thus, there is reason to believe that the petitioner continued at Lahunipada branch till the order of transfer is made on 20.06.2012. It appears from Annexure-8 that the petitioner has made representation to opposite party no.1 against the order of his transfer dated 20.06.2012 and vide Annexure-9, the opposite party no.1 asked the opposite party no.2 about the status of the representation of the petitioner. Annexures-10, 11 and 12 show that the petitioner and his Advocate made several representations to the opposite party no.2 to consider the posting of the petitioner. Annexures-10, 11 and 12 show that the petitioner and his Advocate made several representations to the opposite party no.2 to consider the posting of the petitioner. However, it is clear from the writ petition that when the assurance given by the opposite party no.2 to join at Head Office for clearing his arrear salary, he joined on 25.09.2014 in the office of opposite party no.2 and asked for order to hand over charge of Lahunipada branch and accordingly on 25.09.2014, vide Annexure-15, the petitioner was directed to hand over the charge of Lahunipada branch to Sri G.S. Mohanta on or before 30.09.2014 and Annexure-16 shows that the petitioner was directed to join at Nuapatna branch as Branch Manager. These documents thus reiterate the view that the petitioner was never transferred from Lahunipada Branch till he joins at the main branch. 15. There is no order of relieve filed by the opposite party no.2 to show that the petitioner has been relieved from Lahunipada as per the stand taken by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 in their counter. On the other hand, the additional affidavit of opposite party no.2 filed on 11.07.2017 does not disclose about any relieve order passed against the petitioner so as to prove the relieve of the petitioner from Lahunipaa branch. The attendance register of the petitioner and Sri G.S. Mohanta were called for and from a perusal of the same, it appears that for the disputed period, Sri Mohanta has only signed in the said register and the another register produced by the petitioner shows that the petitioner has also worked in that period. It is also revealed from the additional affidavit of the opposite party no.2 that the petitioner had not handed over charge and separate attendance register was opened. All these materials only point out that the petitioner in fact has not been relieved from Lahunipada branch and continued there as Assistant Manager till he joined in the main office of opposite party no.2 in spite of Sri Mohanta attending separate work as detailed earlier by the Office Order dated 24.03.2012 issued by opposite party no.2 who could not make out a case to defeat the claim of the petitioner. 16. 16. The contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the petitioner has not worked for the disputed period for which he is not entitled for any salary for the said period and the same is unauthorized are also incorrect because for any disobedience of the order of the petitioner or unauthorized absence, there could have been a disciplinary proceeding or any inquiry. Without any inquiry or disciplinary proceeding, it is not possible to hold that the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent for the disputed period. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala and others Vs. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai, (2007) 6 SCC 524 , at paragraph-4, have observed as follows: “4. xx xx xx Particularly when the administration has wrongly denied his due then in that case he should be given full benefits including monetary benefit subject to there being any change in law or some other supervening factors. However, it is very difficult to set down any hard-and-fast rule. The principle 'no work no pay' cannot be accepted as a rule of thumb. There are exceptions where courts have granted monetary benefits also. xx xx xx xx” The aforesaid decision has also been followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph-13 of the judgment in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. Union of India and others; 2015 (8) Scale 426 and relevant portion of the said paragraph is quoted below for reference. “13. We are conscious that even in the absence of statutory provision, normal rule is “no work no pay”. In appropriate cases, a court of law may take into account all the facts in their entirety and pass an appropriate order in consonance with law. The principle of “no work no pay” would not be attracted where the respondents were in fault in not considering the case of the appellant for promotion and not allowing the appellant to work on a post of Naib Subedar carrying higher pay scale. xx xx xx xx” With due respect to the aforesaid decisions, it is made clear that “no work no pay” is not rule of thumb and it can be only used by taking the facts and circumstances of each case into consideration. xx xx xx xx” With due respect to the aforesaid decisions, it is made clear that “no work no pay” is not rule of thumb and it can be only used by taking the facts and circumstances of each case into consideration. It is reiterated that when there is no inquiry or disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner started by opposite party no.2 and the discussion hereinabove show that the petitioner was on duty at Lahunipada branch, the absence of the petitioner cannot be unauthorized one. Apart from this, it must be made clear that the petitioner is one of the regular employee of opposite party no.2. In such circumstances, it is observed that the petitioner was not unauthorizedly absent and the principle of “no work no pay” would not apply to him. The point is answered accordingly. 18. CONCLUSION In the writ petition, it has been prayed to release the arrear salary of the petitioner from July, 2012 to September, 2014 as per Annexure-18 after quashing Annexure-19. It has not been proved by the opposite parties that the petitioner was absent unauthorizedly and the petitioner having proved the documents that he was working during the above period, as asked for, Annexure-19 denying the salary for the disputed period to the petitioner on the ground of “no work no pay” is liable to be interfered with and as such, the Court do quash the said impugned order vide Annexure-19. On the other hand, the Court is of the view that the petitioner being entitled to the salary for the period from July, 2012 to September, 2014, should be paid the arrear salary. So, the opposite parties are directed to pay the arrear salary of the petitioner for the period from 01.07.2012 to 24.09.2014 after calculating the same in accordance with law to the petitioner within a period of three months from today failing which the same has to be paid by the opposite parties with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.