HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 3746/2008 (OA No.1229/1996) Date of Decision: March 24 , 2009 B. L. Khanna ……. Petitioner Versus State of H.P.& Anr. ….. Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner : Mr. R. P. Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A. G with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A. G. and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A.G. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) While working as Assistant Engineer with the respondents, petitioner was transferred from Subathu to Paonta Sahib. He challenged the same before the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Shimla by filing OA No. 1470 of 1995 in which he also sought a stay of the said transfer order and vide interim orders dated 1.8.1995 (Annexure A-1) his transfer was stayed with the direction that the respondents permit him to work at Subathu Distt. Solan. The matter was contested by the State and vide orders dated 20.10.1995 (Annexure A-2), the Tribunal passed the following order:- “10. I am thus of the opinion that the impugned transfers have been ordered by the respondents in good faith and in public interest and not arbitrarily or capriciously. There is not Abslightest whisper or mala-fides warranting my 2 interference nor is violation of any statutory instruct on apparent in this case. The applications thus have no force. 11. This case, however, has another dimension in-as- much as the applicant has less than two years to retire on superannuation and in terms of the transfer policy framed by the respondent State itself, an employee having less than two years to serve is entitled to be given a station of his choice if his transfer is unavoidable from his present station. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that Paonta Sahib or Rajgarh are not the stations of applicant’s choice. Not finding fault with the impugned transfers of the applicant outside Subathu, the respondents are directed to consider the applicant’s case for transfer to anyone of the five stations of his choice to be indicated by him to respondent No.1, within a period of 10 days and to post him, as far as possible, in any one of those stations. This exercise may be completed within a period of six weeks from today and till that time, the applicant may be allowed to continue working at Subathu. 12. The applications are hereby allowed to the extent indicated above without any order as to costs.” In terms of orders dated 22.12.1995 (Annexure A-3), petitioner was sent on deputation to Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry and transferred from Subathu to Nauni (Oachghat). He again approached the Tribunal by filing OA No. 397/96 and vide orders dated 19.4.1996 , the Tribunal directed the parties to maintain status quo. The said order was modified in terms of the order dated 14.5.1996 which is reproduced as under:- “After seeing the record we have enquired about the option of the applicant to be posted at Oachghat. The applicant has given his consent by claiming deputation allowances on his posting at Oachghat as per his option 3 earlier given and contained in Annexure R-2 dated 21.11.1995. In that view of the matter nothing survives for determination of this Forum. We direct the respondents to pay the deputation allowance to the applicant form the date of his joining the post in accordance with rules. 2. At this stage learned counsel for the applicant has made a prayer for the directions to the respondents to release the arrears of salary due and admissible. Accordingly we direct respondent No.1 to release the arrears which are due and admissible to the applicant, within a period of one month from the date of this order. The application stands disposed of in the light of above observation in limine.” It is the petitioner’s grievance that for the period when the matter was pending before the Tribunal, the respondents have not released his salary. Therefore, directions be issued to the respondents for the release of the salary and other consequential benefits. Noticeably, in OA No.1470/95, the respondents action was upheld. Petitioner had approached the Tribunal of his own and had benefited of the stay order. He continued to stay at Subathu. Finally, it was found that his petition was without merit. It was only with a view to accommodate him that it was so directed that he may be accommodated at any of the stations of his choice. It is a settled law that the party who approaches the Court and obtains an order does go at his own peril and he must suffer the consequences for failure of his action. In the present case, the Tribunal upheld the Governmental action. The respondents failed to discharge his duty as per Governmental directions and hence, not having worked on his 4 post he was not entitled to any salary. Similarly, in Original Application No. 397/96, petitioner gave his consent. Dues which were admissible were released in terms of the said order dated 14.5.1996. It is not the petitioner’s case that the said order stood violated or was not complied with in letter and spirit. Petitioner did not approach the Tribunal seeking clarification of this order. In this view of the matter, the petitioner has got no legally enforceable right to press for the relief prayed for. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. March 24 , 2009. (rana)