WP(C) 2774/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Heard Shri A. Rosid, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri BJ Ghos h, learned Government Advocate, Assam. The petitioner was appointed in a Grade-IV post under the Sub-Divisional Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Officer (SDVO), Sadia, Chapakhowa on 27.9.1988. By order dated 22.8.2003 he was transferred to another establishment in Lahowal , Dibrugarh District. According to the petitioner, he had difficulties in carryi ng out the said transfer and, therefore, he filed a representation dated 2.9.200 3 against the transfer order. The petitioner has further claimed that upto 29.12 .2006 he had continued to work under SDVO, Sadiya, Chapakhowa whereafter the sai d officer had not allowed him to perform any duties. The petitioner also claimed that he has not been paid his salary with effect from 1.1.2004. Seeking the Cou rt’s intervention in the aforesaid facts, this writ petition has been filed. The Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary, Assam has filed an affi davit in the case. The Director, in the affidavit filed, has stated that the pet itioner had refused to carry out the order dated 22.8.2003 and further that he h ad not filed any representation, as claimed by him. According to the Director, t he petitioner instead of complying with the transfer order had continued to rema in in the office of the SDVO, Sadiya, Chapakhowa by adopting a hostile attitude. The conduct of the petitioner, thereafter, indicated insubordination and defian ce of the lawful orders passed. In the affidavit filed, the Director has further stated that on 31.8.2005 another transfer order was passed, this time transferr ing the petitioner to a vacant Grade-IV post under the District Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Officer, Lakhimpur which order was also not carried out by the p etitioner. As the petitioner had not joined in his new place of posting and as h e has been released from the establishment of the SDVO, Sadiya, Chapakhowa way b ack in 30.8.2003, the petitioner will not be entitled to any salary. The facts stated in the affidavit of the Director have not been controve rted by the petitioner by filing a rejoinder affidavit or by placing any contrar y materials before the Court. In-fact, the only prayer made by Mr. Roshid, learn ed Counsel for the petitioner at the hearing has been that the petitioner should not be allowed to join his duties in any post against which he may now be poste d. The Court has noticed that in-spite of alleged absence of the petitioner from duties for long i.e. from 30.8.2003, no departmental proceeding has been i nitiated against the petitioner and no order adverse to the petitioner has been passed. As the respondents have not taken recourse to any of the options open in law, the Court is of the view that the petitioner should now be given a fresh p osting and in the event the petitioner joins in the said post, the period of his absence should be regularized without, however, payment of any salary. Such reg ularization of the period of absence will only be to maintain continuity of the petitioner in service so as to entitle him to the benefit of pension and other r etirement benefits. The respondents will pass the consequential orders and take further action as may be required within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order or a certified copy thereof. This will dispose of the writ petition.