ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The appellant is in appeal against the order dated 6th July 2018 passed in W.P.(S) No.2073 of 2010. 2. The appellant was posted at S.S.+2 High School, Bero, Ranchi as Laboratory Assistant. After the bifurcation of erstwhile State of Bihar, he continued to work for some time under the State of Jharkhand and was relieved on 8th July 2006 to tender his services to State of Bihar. He joined on 14th July 2006 in the headquarters and till 7th May 2007 he was waiting for posting. The final order of cadre allocation was issued on 1st July 2008 and he was relieved by the State of Bihar on 30th November 2008 to tender his joining in the State of Jharkhand, where he gave joining in the headquarters on 1st December 2008. 3. By an order dated 28th November 2008, the District Education Officer, Bhagalpur regularised the period between 14th July 2006 to 7th May 2007 under the following two categories: (i) from 14th July 2006 to 26th October 2006 shall be adjusted under the head Earned Leave, and (ii) from 27th October 2006 to 7th May 2007 shall be treated as Extraordinary Leave. 4. The order dated 28th November 2008 was challenged by the appellant by filing W.P.(S) No.2073 of 2010. 5. The appellant approached the writ Court in W.P.(S) No.2073 of 2010 with the following prayers : “i. For the issuance of an appropriate writ order direction for directing the respondents to forthwith release the arrears of salary for the period from 9.7.06 to 7.5.07 the period for which the petitioner was waiting for posting under respondent No.5 along with interest. ii. For the issuance of an appropriate writ order direction commanding upon the respondents to forthwith release the arrears of difference of salary which is due prior to 15.11.2000 amounting to Rs. 20 thousand along with interest. iii. For the issuance of an appropriate writ order direction for payment of Travelling allowance which the petitioner has incurred in course of transit to give his joining at transferred place of posting i.e. to the tune of Rs.20 thousand. iv. 20 thousand along with interest. iii. For the issuance of an appropriate writ order direction for payment of Travelling allowance which the petitioner has incurred in course of transit to give his joining at transferred place of posting i.e. to the tune of Rs.20 thousand. iv. For the issuance of an appropriate writ order direction for quashing the order dated 28.11.2008 as contained in memo No.3443 by which the District Education Officer Bhagalpur treated the period from 14.7.2006 to 7.5.2007 as- (a) From 14.7.06 to 26.10.06 as a period of Earned Leave. (b) From 27.10.06 to 7.5.07 as extra ordinary leave. And/or For the issuance of any other appropriate writ order direction for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.” 6. By an order dated 6th July 2018, the writ Court directed the respondents to pass an appropriate order for regularising the period between 27th October 2006 to 7th May 2007. 7. Before the writ Court, the State of Bihar took the following stand: “8. That all the Laboratory Assistants after being relieved joined in the Headquarter at Patna where they were putting their signature in the attendance register being kept and maintained for them. 9. That it would be evident from perusal of the peon book being Diary No.-10747 that the petitioner submitted joining report but he did never report in the Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna and he disappeared. That other colleagues of the petitioner remained in the Headquarter and they used to put their signature in the Attendance Register but the petitioner did not turn up and he did not put his signature even for a day. 10. That the petitioner instead of putting his signature on the attendance register made a frivolous complain in the Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna. 11. That the Department of S.C. & S.T. Welfare vide Letter No.-2229 dated 24.06.08 asked for a report from the H.R.D., Govt. of Bihar vide Letter No.-651 dated 28.07.2008 furnished a detailed reply addressed to the Director, S.C. & S.T. Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 12. That since the petitioner did not put his signature in the attendance register meant for such Lab Assistant who were allocated State of Bihar after bifurcation of State and hence he was not entitled for salary w.e.f. 27.10.06 to 07.05.07 on the Principle of “No work No Pay” basis. of Bihar, Patna. 12. That since the petitioner did not put his signature in the attendance register meant for such Lab Assistant who were allocated State of Bihar after bifurcation of State and hence he was not entitled for salary w.e.f. 27.10.06 to 07.05.07 on the Principle of “No work No Pay” basis. That in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above the petitioner is not entitled to seek relief so far it relates to the Department of Human Resources Development, Govt. of Bihar.” 8. The writ Court took note of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Bihar that for the period between 14th July 2006 to 26th October 2006 the petitioner is entitled to Earned Leave salary, but so far Extraordinary Leave from 27th October 2006 to 7th May 2007 is concerned that is treated as leave without pay. However, after having noticed that the respondents could not support their stand in the counter-affidavit by showing that there is any statutory requirement for marking attendance for availing salary for the period an employee was kept waiting for posting, the respondent was directed to take a fresh decision in the matter. 9. The writ Court has held as under: “8. Before adverting to the rivalized submissions, it would be apposite to refer Rule-14(a) of the Service Code which is quoted hereinbelow:- ‘14(a) Duty includes,- (i) service in India, as a probationer or apprentice, if such service is followed by confirmation or by appointment to Government service; (ii) joining time; (iii) extra leave on average pay granted to a Government servant undergoing treatment at a Pasteur Institute. (i) On perusal of the impugned order vis-a-vis the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.6, it is quite evident that the petitioner is entitled to earned leave salary for the period from 14.07.2006 to 26.10.2006 and the period for which he has been treated to be on earned leave but so far as extra ordinary leave period 27.10.2006 to 07.05.2007 is concerned, that is treated as leave without pay. In order to appreciate the contentious issue the relevant provision of the extraordinary leave is quoted hereinbelow:- “Rule-236 of the Service Code:-Extraordinary leave may be granted to a Government servant in special circumstances:- (i) When no other leave is admissible under these rules; (ii) When, other leave being admissible, the Government servant concerned applies in writing for the grant of extraordinary leave.” (II) As per the aforesaid provision when no other leave is admissible on the account of an employee, in that eventuality, extraordinary leave can be resorted to. Moreover, the period is to be regularized as per Rule-14(a) of the Service Code. (III) Since, the respondents have failed to point out any provision in the service jurisprudence as to whether marking of attendance is a condition precedent for grant of salary, when an employee joined in service in the headquarters. No satisfactory explanation has been given by the respondent. (IV) It is a trite law that where the power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. This doctrine has been well recognized in principle. The reference may be made to Privy Council AIR 1936 PC 253 in the case of Nazir Ahmad Vs. Emperor. 09. In such view of matter, this Court feels inclined to direct the respondents to pass appropriate orders so far it relates to period from 27.10.2006 to 07.05.2007 as mentioned in the impugned order in Annexure-6 as per relevant provision of the Service Code and Leave Rules within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt/communication of a copy of this order.” 10. Grievance of the appellant is that though the writ Court accepted the contention raised on his behalf but instead of granting relief to him remanded the matter before the authority to pass a fresh order. 11. Plainly speaking, the contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the order of remand is improper and may end in a futile exercise for the reason that after referring to the previous order dated 28th November 2008 the writ Court has already held that there is no statutory provision under which the writ petitioner can be denied salary for the period he was waiting for posting. 12. Mr. 12. Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel for the appellant refers to and relies on the judgment in “State of Bihar v. Arbind” (2013) 16 SCC 615 to fortify his contention that without any statutory provision requiring the appellant to mark his attendance denial of salary by the employer is illegal. 13. Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel for the appellant takes us through the judgment in “Arbind” particularly paragraph no.19 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under : “19. …...... There is nothing in the Rules which would require for a suspended employee to remain at the headquarters. Thus, in the present case, even if the doctrine of prejudice is applied, it is quite obvious that the respondent herein was absolutely handicapped to participate in the departmental proceedings and hence, prejudice was caused. In this backdrop, we do not find any error in the conclusion arrived at by the High Court as far as the quashing of order of punishment is concerned.” 14. Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel for the appellant would also invite our attention to Annexure-7 by which the State of Jharkhand regularised the period of 46 days from 1st December 2008 to 15th January 2009 under Rule 14(b) of the Jharkhand Service Code. We are also inclined to accept the submission raised by Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel for the appellant, that in view of the judgment in “Arbind” the appellant is entitled for salary between the period 9th July 2006 to 7th May 2007. 15. In the present proceeding, the following order was passed on 14th February 2022 : “Mr. Purnendu Sharan, the learned counsel appears for the State of Bihar and seeks adjournment by two weeks to apprise the Court whether the writ Court's order has been complied by the authority within the period indicated in paragraph no.9 of the order dated 6th July 2018 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2073 of 2010. Post this matter on 8th March 2022.” 16. We were constrained to seek response from the State of Bihar for the reason that the State of Bihar was directed to take appropriate action within a period of eight weeks. 17. On 8th March 2022, the following order was passed by this Court : “As requested, post this matter tomorrow, that is, 9th March 2022.” 18. We were constrained to seek response from the State of Bihar for the reason that the State of Bihar was directed to take appropriate action within a period of eight weeks. 17. On 8th March 2022, the following order was passed by this Court : “As requested, post this matter tomorrow, that is, 9th March 2022.” 18. On 9th March 2022, the following order was passed by this Court: “As we have observed from the order dated 8th March 2022, when this matter was called out no one appeared for the State of Jharkhand and, therefore, we posted this matter for today. Mr. S.P. Roy, the learned counsel for the State of Bihar, states that he could not obtain the records of the case which are entrusted with his colleague. Post this matter tomorrow, that is, 10th March 2022.” 19. Mr. S.P. Roy, the learned counsel for the State of Bihar would seek one more indulgence for enabling the State of Bihar to file an affidavit as directed by this Court vide order dated 14th February 2022. However, we are not inclined to grant any indulgence to a litigant which has failed to comply with the Court's order. We observe with dismay that the attitude of the State of Bihar which is not in appeal before us against the order dated 6th July 2008 passed in W.P.(S) No.2073 of 2010 cannot be appreciated by the Court, in that, it has failed to apprise the Court whether the writ Court's order has been complied or not. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussions, L.P.A No.680 of 2018 is allowed and the order of remand as contained in paragraph no.9 of the order dated 6th July 2018 is set aside. Consequently, writ petition is allowed and the order dated 28th November 2008 passed by the DSE is quashed. The State of Bihar shall pay arrears of salary to the appellant for the period between 9th July 2006 to 7th May 2007 by regularising the aforesaid period under Rule 14(b) of the Bihar Service Code, within a period of six weeks.