CWP No.14494/2008 06.01.2011 Present: Mr. R. D. Kaundal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. A.G. for the respondents Petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- (i) That the respondents may be directed to treat the period w.e.f. 13.10.2005 to 3.11.2005 of the applicant as on duty for all purposes. (ii) That the respondents further be directed to sanction the leave w.e.f. 5.10.2005 to 12.10.2005 and 4.11.2005 to 1.1.2006 which has already been applied by the applicant as per Rules. (iii) That the respondents may further be directed to provide all the consequential benefits to the applicant.” 2. Vide order dated 2.5.2005 (Annexure A-2), petitioner was transferred from Mechanical Sub Division, Nurpur under the Mechanical Division, Dharamshala to Mechanical Sub Division, Reckong Peo. It appears that for one reason or the other, aforesaid order could not be implemented and petitioner continued to officiate at the original place of his posting. 3. Vide order dated 23.9.2005 (Annexure A-3), petitioner was asked to hand over charge within three days as the incumbent transferee, in his place had already given joining at Nurpur. However, petitioner did not hand over charge until 13.10.2005. Before petitioner could join the place of his transfer, order of transfer dated 2.5.2005 was modified on 29.12.2005 (Annexure R-7) and petitioner was transferred to the place of his original posting, where he joined on 2.1.2006 (Annexure R-8). 4. Thereafter petitioner applied for earned leave w.e.f. 5.10.2005 upto 11.10.2005, 5.11.2005 upto 10.11.2005 and medical leave from 11.11.2005 upto 31.12.2005. His request was turned down for the reason that he was to apply for leave of the kind due w.e.f. 5.10.2005 till 1.1.2006. Petitioner is aggrieved of the same. 5. In my view, no case for interference is made out in the instant case. Mr. R. D. Kaundal, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the instructions issued by the Government of India which are contained in Appendix 10 of the Fundamental Rules (Joining Time). 6. Contention as is so sought to be urged by Mr. Kaundal needs to be rejected for two reasons firstly petitioner himself applied for earned leave w.e.f. 5.10.2005. At the time of applying for leave it was not the petitioner’s case that he had to hand over 1500 articles kept in the store to the new incumbent and required time for this purpose. Instructions thus become inapplicable. Secondly instructions would not apply in a case where petitioner himself fails to comply with the order and authorities are forced to issue relieving order. Petitioner was transferred on 2.5.2005. There was sufficient time available with him to hand over charge to the new incumbent. He failed to do so till the time respondents were constrained to relieve him. 7. In these circumstances, present petition is accordingly rejected. It is clarified that it is always open for the petitioner to apply for the leave of the kind due in accordance with law. January 06, 2011 ( Sanjay Karol ), (rana) Judge.