JUDGMENT : 1. This is an intra Court appeal filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and order dated 03.03.2017 passed in W.P.No.108324/2015. 2. The facts in brief are, the 4th respondent was working as a Second Division Assistant in S. Nijalingappa College, Bengaluru, run by the appellant, which was an aided post. The 4th respondent was transferred from S. Nijalingappa College, Bengaluru, to G. I. Bagewadi College, Nippani, on 15.06.1992. Pursuant to which, the Bengaluru College relieved the 4th respondent and who in turn reported for duty at Nippani College on 01.07.1992. Immediately after joining, the 4th respondent applied for leave. G. I. Bagewadi College, Nippani, sent the annual salary statement of 1992 to the 3rd respondent for the period he had worked. The 3rd respondent returned the salary statement on the ground that there is delay in filing it and there are four aided posts as such the 4th respondent would not fit in the said post. On the preliminary steps taken by the appellant- Management to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the 4th respondent, an Undertaking was given by the 4th respondent that he will be regular to duties; will not absent himself in future and requested to condone the lapse. It transpires that on 27.12.1993, G. I. Bagewadi College, Nippani, has replied to the 3rd respondent stating that in view of the promotion of one S. B. Badigannanavar to the post of Superintendent subject to approval of the Government, the 4th respondent could be the 4th Second Division Assistant. However, the State Government did not approve promotion of S. B. Badigannanavar as Office Superintendent at that stage. The 4th respondent remained absent from 01.07.1992 to 04.04.1995. Thereafter the Government approved the promotion of S.B. Badigannanavar with retrospective effect from 17.04.1990 and he has received the salary arrears from the Government. The 4th respondent abandoned his job and did not attend the office. He started making representations for his transfer to Bengaluru. Thereafter the 4th respondent filed W.P. No.8953/1998 challenging the order of transfer dated 15.06.1992 and to approve the post or to direct the petitioner to retransfer him to his original place. This writ petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy against which the 4th respondent preferred an appeal MA (EAT) No.32/1998 which was dismissed as not maintainable. Thereafter the 4th respondent filed W.P. No.8953/1998 challenging the order of transfer dated 15.06.1992 and to approve the post or to direct the petitioner to retransfer him to his original place. This writ petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy against which the 4th respondent preferred an appeal MA (EAT) No.32/1998 which was dismissed as not maintainable. The appellant issued show-cause notice to respondent No.4 calling upon him to show cause as to why suitable action should not be taken for his unauthorized absence. The 4th respondent filed W.P. No.36246/2001 challenging the order in MA (EAT) No.32/1998. It was disposed of directing the 4th respondent to file an appeal before the Government under Section 130 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (‘the Act’ for short). The 4th respondent filed an appeal in Appeal No.40/2002 before the 2nd respondent along with the application for condonation of delay and to set aside the order dated 26.02.1994 and in the alternative challenged the order dated 15.06.1992. The Appellate Authority, by its order dated 20.07.2005 has set aside the order of transfer directing the appellant to pay the salary of the 4th respondent for the period for which he has actually worked, further directing the appellant to initiate disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law. 3. Aggrieved by the same, the 4th respondent preferred Revision Petition in R.P. No.23/2008 before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent directed the appellant to pay salary with all other consequential benefits to the 4th respondent in terms of the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Appeal No.40/2002. Aggrieved, the appellant filed W.P. No.31034/2008 which came to be allowed. The matter was remanded to the 1st respondent with a direction to reconsider the same in accordance with law providing opportunity to the parties and to pass appropriate orders within four months from the date of receipt of the order. Consequent to which, the 1st respondent passed the order on 29.05.2015 with a direction to the appellant–College Management to pay entire salary arrears to the 4th respondent for the period 15.06.1992 to 20.07.2005 along with the consequential benefits at the earliest. Aggrieved by the same, the 4th respondent preferred W.P. No.108324/2015 which came to be dismissed confirming the order of the 1st respondent. Hence, this writ appeal. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the 4th respondent preferred W.P. No.108324/2015 which came to be dismissed confirming the order of the 1st respondent. Hence, this writ appeal. 4. Learned counsel Sri Subramanyam representing learned counsel Sri Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath for the appellant would submit that subsequent to the transfer order passed by the appellant on 15.06.1992, the 4th respondent reported to duty on 01.07.1992, thereafter applied for leave. Again, he joined to duties on 27.10.1993 at G.I. Bagewadi Arts, Science and Commerce College, Nippani, with an undertaking that he will be regular in his duties thereafter he will not commit such type of mistake in future but failed to comply with the Undertaking. It was the contention of the learned counsel that during the period 01.07.1992 and 04.04.1995, for about 3 years, the 4th respondent hardly attended to work for 87 days. It was unauthorized absence and no leave was sanctioned by the appellant-management college. Had the 4th respondent continued the work at Nippani College, consequent upon the approval of promotion of S.B. Badigannanavar as Office Superintendent, which was approved with retrospective effect from 17.04.1990 by order dated 23.12.1995, the transfer of 4th respondent could have been approved and his salary would have been paid w.e.f. 01.07.1992. However, the 4th respondent chose to abandon his employment. The 4th respondent is well settled in Bengaluru and thereafter he was not interested to work at Nippani. For that reason, he constantly remained absent, submitting representations seeking for transfer to Bengaluru. 5. The 4th respondent attained the age of superannuation on 22.07.2005. It was submitted that 4th respondent showed more interest in correspondence than attending the work. The appellant was waiting for approval of the promotion of Sri. S.B. Badigannanavar as Office Superintendent with retrospective effect, so that the transfer of 4th respondent also could be approved with retrospective effect. However, the conduct of the 4th respondent was different, he had virtually abandoned the service. 6. The learned counsel submitted that in the order passed by this Court in WP No.31038/2008 setting aside the impugned order therein and directing the 1st respondent to reconsider the same in accordance with law, nowhere in the order, delay in filing the revision petition was condoned. In such circumstances, 1st respondent without addressing the point of limitation proceeded to pass an order on merit which is prima facie erroneous. In such circumstances, 1st respondent without addressing the point of limitation proceeded to pass an order on merit which is prima facie erroneous. The learned single Judge ought to have appreciated the same. 7. In the proceedings before the authorities/courts, the main relief sought by the 4th respondent was to transfer him to Bengaluru. The 4th respondent was aware of the fact that the post held by him with the appellant-Management was transferable job. Any transfer made due to administrative reason cannot be brushed aside and an employee cannot seek transfer to a place of his choice as a matter of right. From the date of transfer order, the intention of the 4th respondent is manifest from his conduct, without contributing any work, he proceeded to claim arrears of salary in utter disobedience of the transfer order. The doctrine of ‘No work No pay’ is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Finding of the learned Single Judge that the employer is at fault in not providing an alternative posting and the contentions of the unauthorized absence cannot be accepted, is not sustainable, unless the employee works for the employer, the salary is not automatic and there was no reason to the 4th respondent to stay away from the work. No person can demand a salary sans discharging the duties. Sympathy shown to the 4th respondent in not taking immediate disciplinary action for unauthorized absence has resulted in the order impugned herein, burdening the appellant11 Management with huge monetary loss with a direction to pay salary without extracting the work which is unjustifiable. 8. Respondent No.1 proceeded to allow the petition of the 4th respondent on the premise that the 4th respondent was not transferred against the vacant post. Inviting the attention of this Court to the order of the approval made by the Government of Karnataka for the transfer of Sri. .B. Badigannanavar with retrospective effect from 1990, argued that there was consequential vacancy against which the 4th respondent was transferred. The 1st respondent failed to consider the same and proceeded to hold transfer order as untenable and the same was confirmed by the learned Single Judge without appreciating the arguments advanced by the appellant. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. The 1st respondent failed to consider the same and proceeded to hold transfer order as untenable and the same was confirmed by the learned Single Judge without appreciating the arguments advanced by the appellant. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. Anjan Sanyal, (2001) 5 SCC 508 . 9. Per contra, Sri. Suresh B Betagiri-4th respondent appeared in-person. 10. The 4th respondent submitted that the transfer order dated 15.06.1992 issued by the appellant Management is wholly illegal, not approved by the department. It was incumbent on the appellant to provide alternative post to the 4th respondent or to transfer him to Bengaluru i.e. original post. In compliance with the transfer order, he reported to the duty and applied for leave due to medical reasons. No action was initiated against him for unauthorized absence as now alleged. There was no unauthorized absence, but the appellant failed to provide work. The employee who is depending on the salary has to be paid in terms of the employment conditions. There being no allegation against him, he cannot be denied with service benefits. The principle of ‘No work No pay’ is not applicable to the facts of the present case owing to the negligence and inaction of the appellant. Considering these aspects, the learned single Judge confirmed the order of the 1st respondent and directed the appellant to make payment of arrears of salary within stipulated period, failing which to pay interest which cannot be faulted. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 12. It is apparent that pursuant to the transfer order issued by the appellant on 15.06.1992, the 4th respondent was relieved from the College at Bengaluru and accordingly he reported to duties as Second Division Assistant at G.I. Bagewadi Arts, Science and Commerce College, Nippani. Thereafter, immediately he went on leave without the same being sanctioned by the appellant. It is on 26.02.1994, the 3rd respondent rejected the transfer order of the 4th respondent as well as the annual salary slip. It is hardly required to be stated that the 4th respondent was appointed in the appellant-Institution which was a transferable post. Transfer is an incidence of service. It is not only incident but implicit. It is on 26.02.1994, the 3rd respondent rejected the transfer order of the 4th respondent as well as the annual salary slip. It is hardly required to be stated that the 4th respondent was appointed in the appellant-Institution which was a transferable post. Transfer is an incidence of service. It is not only incident but implicit. The 4th respondent avoided to work at Nippani and preferred to stay back at Bengaluru. Transfer order even assuming was not against a vacant post, had the 4th respondent attended the duties in the transferred place, it was incumbent on the Management-appellant to pay the salary even if the annual salary slip was not approved by the Government. Approval of transfer and salary slip was the dispute between the appellant-Management and the Government. The 4th respondent taking advantage of the same, proceeded with litigation rather than attending to work. 13. It is well settled that a person cannot be allowed to draw the benefits of a post, the duties of which he has not discharged. Ultimate rule is that a person is to be paid only for the work he has done and not for the work he has not done. It is the normal rule that the doctrine of ‘no work and no pay’ is not applicable to an employee, though willing to work was kept away from work by the Management or the authorities for no fault of his. Remaining away from the work for his own reasons, although the work is offered to him would not fall within the ambit of this exception clause. Admittedly, the 4th respondent has worked with the appellant-Institution only for about 87 days after issuing the transfer order dated 15.06.1992. He having attained superannuation in the year 2005 started claiming the salary and other service benefits for the period admittedly not worked. The conduct of the 4th respondent speaks volumes about his disobedience of the transfer order. Admittedly, the 4th respondent has worked with the appellant-Institution only for about 87 days after issuing the transfer order dated 15.06.1992. He having attained superannuation in the year 2005 started claiming the salary and other service benefits for the period admittedly not worked. The conduct of the 4th respondent speaks volumes about his disobedience of the transfer order. The revisional authority proceeded to hold that the doctrine of ‘no work and no pay’ is not applicable to the facts of the present case for the reason that the 4th respondent was not transferred against a vacant post and no alternative post was offered by the appellant-Management, there was no fault on the part of the 4th respondent and it is the imbroglio of the appellant-Management which caused hardship to the 4th respondent as well as to the appellant cannot be appreciated. Though, it is evident and an undisputed fact that the 4th respondent had not appeared to work except 87 days from 15.06.1992 till his retirement, for more than 22 years merely on the ground that no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for his unauthorized absence, the 4th respondent cannot be put on a better position to demand the salary for the entire period of unauthorized absence. It is the fundamental duty of an employee to contribute his work for which he was employed. Abstaining from duty on the pretext of non-approval of the transfer order by the Government for more than 22 years and seeking the entire salary for all these years if appreciated, would certainly encourage such employees who would take benefit of the sympathy shown by the institution in not initiating the disciplinary proceedings. 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. ANJAN SANYAL AND OTHERS [ (2001) 5 SCC 508 ], in the context of an employee remaining absent from duty held that even higher authorities of the Bank were quite soft towards the respondent and it is possibly for that purpose, they had not taken any action against him for all the lapses committed by him, a valid transfer order being issued and the employee concerned had been relieved of his duties, it was required for the employee to join the place of posting. It is held that the order of transfer having not obeyed by the employee and having not discharged the duties, but yet continuing in service, how the period should be dealt with, will depend upon the relevant rules and regulations of the Management Bank. Accordingly, the directions of the High Court of Calcutta directing the Bank to pay the salary and other benefits to the respondent was set aside allowing the appeal. This judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court would throw light on the aspect of ‘no work no pay’ particularly when the employee is transferred and the same is disobeyed by the employee. 15. It is true that the transfer order was not accepted by the Government since there was no sanctioned post at the relevant time. It is the plea of the appellant-Management that one Shri S.B. Badigannanavar, Second Division Assistant of Nipanni was due for promotion in the year 1990 and approval of the said promotion was pending for consideration before the Government and the same was approved in the year 1995 with retrospective effect from 1990. In the said vacant post of Shri S.B. Badigannanavar, the Second Division Assistant who was promoted, the post of the 4th respondent would have been approved for the grant-inaid. It is also true that there is negligence and inaction on the part of the appellant-Management in not initiating the necessary disciplinary proceedings at the relevant time which paved way to the 4th respondent to accuse the appellant-Management of not providing the alternative post to work. The revisional authority as well as the learned Single Judge were primarily of the opinion that in view of the flaw committed by the appellant-Management, in not initiating disciplinary proceedings against respondent No.4, the appellant has to pay the arrears of salary and accordingly fixed the liability on the appellant. Considering the totality of the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that to strike a balance between the rights of the parties, and in order to meet the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to direct the appellant to make the payment of 50% of the arrears of salary along with service benefits to which the 4th respondent is entitled to. We are expressing this view keeping in mind the conduct of the employee-4th respondent who was equally at fault keeping away from the duty in the guise of challenging the order of the Government in rejecting his salary slip and not approving the transfer which would have been tackled by the Management as a consequential vacancy arising from the post of Sri S.B. Badigannanavar. It is not the period of compulsory waiting for respondent No.4 but voluntarily abandoning from duty, avoiding work at Nippani and preferring the place of his choice at Bengaluru. Had the employee worked at the place of transfer, the Management was bound to pay the entire arrears of salary with all service benefits. 16. For the reasons aforesaid, we allow the appeal in part setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge. We direct the appellant-Management to make the payment of 50% of the arrears of salary for the period 15.06.1992 to 20.07.2005 along with service benefits to the 4th respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order failing which the appellant shall pay interest at 9% p.a. from the date of passing of this order till the date of payment.