IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA C.W.P. No.375 of 2004 Date of decision: 18.7.2008. H.P.S.E.B. ....Petitioner -Versus- Jeet Ram ….Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta,Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K.Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the Petitioner: Mr.Baldev Singh, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr.Subhash Sharma, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) This petition is directed against the order of the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal dated 22.3.2004 passed in O.A. No.2629 of 2003. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent was working as Section Officer in the office of the Chief Engineer (Projects), HPSEB, Shimla. Vide order dated 24.5.2003 he was transferred to the office of the Kashang Construction Circle, HPSEB, Jeori. He was relieved from the said post on 30.5.2003. Admitted facts are that the respondent never joined at Jeori. Though he states that on 9th June, 2003 he sent an intimation to the Board that he was unwell, the Board has disputed the receipt of any such intimation. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the respondent never joined at Jeori and approached the Chief Minister 2 of the State for cancellation of his transfer and consequent to his request the transfer was cancelled on 17th June, 2003 and on the same date he rejoined the office of the Chief Engineer (Projects) at Shimla. The petitioner Board treated the respondent to be absent from the period 30.5.2003 to 16.6.2003. The respondent filed an O.A. before the learned Tribunal claiming that he was entitled to 10 days joining time i.e. 31.5.2003 to 9.6.2003. He prayed that the period from 31.5.2003 to 9.6.2003 be treated as joining time and he may be granted leave of the kind due for the balance period. This O.A. has been allowed and a direction has been issued by the learned Tribunal to the petitioner Board to grant joining time to the respondent from 31.5.2003 to 9.6.2003 and the period from 10.6.2003 to 16.6.2003 has been directed to be treated leave of the kind due. This order is under challenge before us. We are of the considered view that the joining time is meant to be availed only by a person who actually joins the place where he is posted. The phrase ‘joining time’ itself implies that the employee will join at the place where he is transferred to. Where an employee does not join the place where he is posted and keeps approaching the higher authorities for cancellation of his transfer, he cannot be granted joining time. Sh.Subhash Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent employee has placed reliance on F.R. 108, which reads as follow: “F.R. 108. A Government servant who does not join his post within his joining time is entitled to no pay or leave salary after the end of the 3 joining time. Willful absence from duty after the expiry of joining time may be treated as misbehaviour for the purpose of Rule 15.” All that this fundamental rule states is that an employee shall not be entitled to any salary after the joining period is over if he does not join the place of posting. This however does not mean that the employee is entitled to joining time even if he does not join his place of posting and later his transfer is cancelled. If the employee has not joined at the place where he has been transferred, he cannot claim joining time at all. The purpose of F.R. 108 is to ensure that in case an employee does not join the duties within the prescribed period then he shall not be paid salary from the date of expiry of the joining time till date of joining. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Tribunal is totally inconsistent with the legal position and the same is accordingly set- aside. We have been informed that the respondent employee has since retired. Therefore, we direct that the period from 31.5.2003 to 16.6.2003 shall be treated as leave of the kind due available to the respondent. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), Judge July 18, 2008. ( V.K. Ahuja ), PV Judge