IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8739 of 2000 SMT. INDU PANDIT Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr Ram Balak Mahto, Sr.Advocate, with Mr Amber Nath Banerji,Advocate For the State : Mr Anil Kumar,GP XI ------ 7. 18.07.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner was transferred from Patna to Munger on 31.12.1996. On a representation by the aggrieved at the place where the petitioner had been transferred this order was modified on 17.12.1997 requiring her to join at Fatuah. Her joining at Fatuah was not accepted. She filed a representation. Orders for fresh transfer to Khuti, now in Jharkhjand, were passed on 31.12.1998. The petitioner represented against the same on 8.4.1999 when fresh orders for her posting were passed on 23.6.2000 sending her to Munger. At this stage the petitioner came to this Court in the present writ application in August 2000 challenging the order dated 23.6.2000. The aforesaid controversy falls in two parts. The first part relates to the lapses on the part of the respondents while the second part relates to the petitioner. But it is not in controversy that the petitioner never joined at Khuti or Munger. On 6.9.2000 this Court granted her liberty to represent with regard to her salary and place of posting. The petitioner filed a representation on 20.9.2000 enclosing a copy of the order of this Court, but nothing transpired thereupon. On facts this Court is satisfied that for the period 31.12.1996 to 31.12.1998 when the petitioner was shifted around she cannot be faulted with. In November 1996 she was functioning at Patna and, therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that for the period November 1996 to December 1998 the petitioner is entitled to her entire arrears of salary. In so far as the period thereafter is concerned, considering that the petitioner did not join but that she may have filed a representation this Court is not persuaded to grant the relief of salary on the principle of “no work no pay”. The absence of the petitioner from work and her simultaneous claim for posting are matters to be more appropriately decided by the respondents in their administrative jurisdiction in accordance with law. Let such decision be taken by the respondents within a maximum period of one month from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)