ORDER : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 15.3.2012 by which the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary for the periods from 1.11.1995 to 31.1 1998 has been rejected on the ground of “No Work No Pay”. It is further prayed in the writ petition for release entire arrears of salary for the period 1.11.1995 to 31.1.1998 with interest. 3. The petitioner joined his service in the office of the Circle Officer, Patmada from 12.8.1965 and while he was discharging his duty. All of a sudden he was put under suspension w.e.f 16.8.1978. It was revoked by order dated 19.2.1980 and was exonerated. Thereafter, he was granted promotion to the post of Assistant Settlement Officer vide order dated 16.8.1995 and was directed to join in the office of the respondent no.2 at Ranchi. After receiving the said order of promotion, the petitioner made a representation before the Circle Officer on 3.11.1995 stating therein that the post in which he was granted promotion, he is not willing to accept it mainly on the ground that he has to superannuate within a period of two years. Hence, he requested to the authorities concerned to permit him to discharge his duty as Inspector-cum Kanoogo. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without considering the representation dated 3.11.1995, the petitioner was released from the post of Circle Inspector-cum-Kanoogo and after his release, again the petitioner had made a representation on 8.1.1996 to recall the said order and permit him to discharge his duty as Circle Inspector-cum-Kanoogo but the charge of Circle Inspector-cum-Kanoogo was taken over by the respondent authority. However, the petitioner continued to discharge his duty as Circle Inspector-cum Kanoogo by marking his attendance in daily attendance roll in the office of Circle Officer, Patamda. However, the petitioner continued to discharge his duty as Circle Inspector-cum Kanoogo by marking his attendance in daily attendance roll in the office of Circle Officer, Patamda. It is stated that granting promotion is the duty of the State Respondents but its acceptance is totally different and depends upon the wish and desire of the employee and if a Government employee is granted promotion to the higher post and if he is not willing to accept it, the State Respondents cannot compel a government employee to accept it and if the government employees is not accepting the same, it will not be treated as a misconduct within the definition of misconduct under service jurisprudence because of the reason that non-acceptance of the order of promotion is detrimental to the Government employee only. Hence, it cannot be said to be a misconduct under service jurisprudence. He further submits that in the Service Code, Rule 58 and 103 there is no concept of “No work No Pay” and as such in the impugned order reference of the service Code is made but there is no provision in the service Code to that effect and as such impugned order cannot sustain in the eye of law. He further submits that the petitioner retired on 31.1. 1998 but his last salary was counted as 1.11.1995 and the rest of the period has been left out on the above ground, which is not sustainable. He further submits that the period 2.11.1995 to 31.1.1998 cannot be left out without proving that the petitioner is guilty of any misconduct and this can be done only after following a departmental proceeding which has not been done in this case and as such the action of the authorities is not tenable. 4. The learned counsel for the Respondents-State submits that after release on the promotion post, the petitioner has not joined at Ranchi and as such the impugned order has been passed and the period from 2.11.1995 to 31.1.1998 has rightly considered as “No Work and No Pay”. She further submits that the Circle Officer Patamda has rightly declared that the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit of salary or leave encashment on the principle of “No Work No Pay”, as after transfer the petitioner did not join his transfer place. 5. She further submits that the Circle Officer Patamda has rightly declared that the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit of salary or leave encashment on the principle of “No Work No Pay”, as after transfer the petitioner did not join his transfer place. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties this court finds that the petitioner waived his promotional post and the period in question cannot be left out without proving that the petitioner is guilty of any mis-conduct and this can be done only after following a departmental proceeding which has not been done in this case. There is a specific averments in the writ petition that the petitioner has worked in Circle Officer which has not been denied in the counter affidavit. Thus this fact is admitted by the respondents-State that the petitioner even after releasing from that post went to join that post. 6. As a cumulative effect of all the aforesaid facts, the impugned order dated 15.3.2012 cannot be sustained in law and accordingly, this writ application is allowed and the impugned order dated 15.3.2012 is quashed. Respondents-State are directed to treat the period from 2.11.1995 to 31.1.1998 of continuous in service and the petitioner shall be entitled for the salary with all consequential benefits w.e.f 2.11.1995 to 31.1.1998 i.e. the date of superannuation of the petitioner.