ORDER : Petitioner herein, who is a Principal was transferred from Government College Jaisinghpur to Govt. College Nagrota Bagwan (Kangra), Himachal Pradesh vide notification dated 5.9.2018 (Annexure P-1) vice Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, who being aggrieved with his transfer, filed Original Application No.5429 of 2018 in erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal. Learned Tribunal below vide order dated 11.9.2018 disposed of the petition with following directions:- “4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the original application is disposed of with a direction that the applicant may file a comprehensive representation for cancellation of his transfer or suitable adjustment alongwith certified copy of this order to 1st respondent through Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, within five days. 1st respondent shall decide the same after affording an opportunity of being heard to the applicant as well as private respondent 03, if so desired, by 20th October, 2018. If the applicant has not been relieved, further action, pursuant to notification dated 5th September, 2018 shall stand deferred till decision of the representation.” 2. After passing of aforesaid order, Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta joined back at his previous station i.e. Govt. College Nagrota Bagwan, but before that petitioner herein in compliance to transfer order dated 5.9.2018 (Annexure P-1) had already joined at the transferred station i.e. Govt. College Nagrota Bagwan, Kangra and as such, he continued to work in that college only. Pursuant to aforesaid directions issued by the Tribunal, Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta filed representation to the Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, who vide order dated 6.10.2018 rejected the representation on the ground that Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta has been transferred after one year and four months from his present place of posting to the College situate in the Kangra District itself. 3. As of today, petitioner in terms of transfer order dated 5.9.2018 has been working at the transferred station, but since he was not paid salary for the months of September and October, 2018, he filed repeated representations to the Department to release his salary, but when no heed was paid to his request, he was compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondent to release his two months’ salary. 4. 4. Reply filed on behalf of the respondent clearly reveals that there is no dispute qua the factual matrix of the case, as has been taken note hereinabove. Only defence set up by the respondent-Department for not releasing two month salary to the petitioner for a period of September and October, 2018, is that since Tribunal vide order dated 11.9.2018 had reserved liberty to Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta to file representation, he being Disbursing Officer and Controlling Officer (Gazetted Class-1) of the institution was required to join back at his previous station i.e. Government Collage, Jaisinghpur, Kangra as per the instructions of the department. 5. Ms. Ritta Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General argued that since above named Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta after passing of order dated 11.9.2018 remained posted at Govt. college Nagrota Bagwan, petitioner herein ought to have re-joined his duties at his previous place of posting i.e. Govt. College Jaisinghpur. She argued that there are standing instructions of the department that whenever a incumbent teacher obtains a stay order on transfer from a Court and continues on his transfer, the teacher ordered to replace him shall either be not allowed to join or of if he has already joined he shall be sent back to his original place and shall continue to work against that post and draw his pay against that post only till the case is decided by the Court. She argued that though petitioner is not entitled to salary, as has been claimed by him for two months, but yet competent authority vide letter dated 24.8.2021 (Annexure R-5) conveyed the approval of the Government to regularize the absence period i.e. September 2018 and October, 2018 by granting the leave of kind due. 6. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner argued that once there is no defiance, if any, on the part of the petitioner and he pursuant to transfer order dated 5.9.2018 (Annexure P-1) joined at the transferred station and thereafter continued to work, there is/was no occasion for the respondent to regularize the period of absence of the petitioner for the month of September and October, 2018 by granting leave of kind due. He argued that at no point of time petitioner remained at leave during aforesaid period, rather very much worked at the transferred station. 7. He argued that at no point of time petitioner remained at leave during aforesaid period, rather very much worked at the transferred station. 7. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that Tribunal below while passing order dated 11.9.2018, as reproduced hereinabove, had categorically observed that if the applicant (Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta) has not been relieved, further action, pursuant to notification dated 5th September, 2018 shall stand deferred till decision of the representation. It is not in dispute in the case at hand that after issuance of transfer order, dated 5.9.2018, petitioner had joined at the transferred station i.e. Govt. College Nagrota Bagwan, Kangra. It is only after joining of the petitioner, Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta filed original application, wherein he was granted liberty to file representation to the competent authority. Since Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta stood relieved before passing of order dated 11.92018 by Tribunal in OA No.5429 of 2018 and by that time petitioner had taken charge as Principal, Govt. College Nagrota Bagwan, there was otherwise no occasion for Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta to rejoin at Govt. College Nagrota Bagwan. The instructions issued by the department from time to time, especially vide order dated 20th September, 2012, as has been reproduced in the reply by the respondent itself provides that whenever an incumbent teacher obtain a stay order on transfer from a Court and continues on his transfer, the teacher ordered to replace him shall either be not allowed to join or if he has already joined he shall be sent back to his original place. However, in the instant case, at no point of time stay order was granted against the transfer order (Annexure P-1) by the Tribunal vide order dated 11.9.2018, rather it while reserving liberty to Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta to file representation only observed that in case the applicant i.e. Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta has not been relieved further action, pursuant to notification dated 5th September, 2018 shall stand deferred. 8. In the case at hand, reply filed by the respondent-department itself reveals that at the time of passing of order dated 11.9.2018 by learned tribunal below, petitioner herein had already joined at Govt. College Nagrota Bagwan. Ashok Kumar Gupta has not been relieved further action, pursuant to notification dated 5th September, 2018 shall stand deferred. 8. In the case at hand, reply filed by the respondent-department itself reveals that at the time of passing of order dated 11.9.2018 by learned tribunal below, petitioner herein had already joined at Govt. College Nagrota Bagwan. Clause-7 of aforesaid instructions dated 20th September, 2012 itself reveals that in the event of transfer of controlling officer himself, he/she shall be deemed relieved on the submission of joining report by the other incumbent. If the controlling officer does not comply with the procedure, the salary of the surplus incumbent will be drawn from the salary of the controlling officer. In the instant case, Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta being a Principal of the Govt. College Nagrota Bagwan stood relieved on his transfer immediately on account of his being controlling officer. 9. In the case at hand, Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta stood relieved on joining of the petitioner at Govt. College Nagrota Bagwan, but yet he continued to work at that station and as such, he became surplus not the petitioner. Since petitioner herein joined at the transferred station pursuant to office order issued by the department and thereafter continued to work at new station, there is no justification at all to deny him salary for a period he worked at that station that too on the ground that after passing of order dated 11.9.2018, Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta had rejoined at his previous place of posting i.e. Govt. College Nagrota Bagwan. Since Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta being Controlling Officer stood relieved with the issuance of transfer order dated 5.9.2018 (Annexure P-1) and petitioner had joined before passing of order dated 11.9.2018 by tribunal, it is not petitioner, who can be termed as surplus but Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, who without there being any authority continued to work in his previous college till the disposal of his representation, which otherwise subsequently came to be rejected vide order dated 6.11.2018. Since petitioner never remained absent from his place of posting, action of the respondent in declaring/ regularizing the period of absence in respect of the petitioner qua two months i.e. September and October, 2018 by granting leave of kind due is wholly unjustified and cannot be allowed to sustain. Since petitioner actually worked at Govt. Since petitioner never remained absent from his place of posting, action of the respondent in declaring/ regularizing the period of absence in respect of the petitioner qua two months i.e. September and October, 2018 by granting leave of kind due is wholly unjustified and cannot be allowed to sustain. Since petitioner actually worked at Govt. Degree College Nagrota Bagwan in the month September and October, 2018, order dated 24.8.2021 (Annexure R-5) is not sustainable. 10. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is allowed and order dated 24.8.2021 (Annexure R-5) is quashed and set-aside. The respondent is directed to pay salary to the petitioner for two months i.e. September and October, 2018 forthwith, failing which, respondent-department would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of passing of the order till actual realization. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.