IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4726 of 2000 DR.RAMESHWAR PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr Durga Nand Jha, Advocate For the State : GP 8 ------- 5. 15.09.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The relief of salary for the period 30.8.1996 to 1.11.1996 as the period waiting for posting has been allowed. Likewise the relief for the period 21.10.1998 to 17.12.1998 as waiting for posting has been allowed. That leaves only the period in between 2.11.1996 to 20.10.1998 in controversy and for which salary has been denied terming it as unauthorized absence. Petitioner came to this Court earlier in CWJC No. 8968 of 1998 which inter alia covered the period in between 2.11.1996 to 20.10.1998 when this Court directed him to file a representation. In pursuance there of the impugned order dated 31.3.2000 has been passed. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The order of transfer of the petitioner from Patna to Ranchi at Annexure 4 dated 2.11.1996 itself clarifies that it was not to become effective till certain stay order of this Court were vacated. Thus the petitioner was transferred from Patna but had nowhere to go. He was expected to wander around at the Secretariat, the headquarter, without any work and according to the respondents presumably without any pay. Notwithstanding his several representations to the respondents that he may be intimated of the result of the litigation in the High Court so that he may proceed for joining at Ranchi., it yielded no results. He also made an alternative prayer that if there was any impediment in posting him to Ranchi he may be posted else where inter alia in the Child Department of the Darbhanga Medical College Hospital where vacancy was available. Even this yielded no result. On facts, it is obligation of the employer to provide a posting to the employee. If the employee does not report for duty the question of salary does not arise. But if the employer assigns a posting and simultaneously withholds implementation of the same leaving the employee rudderless and prefers to turn a deaf ear to the repeated pleas of the employee, for an appropriate posting, surely the employee cannot be faulted. this Court has no hesitation in hold that for administrative anarchy and chaos one who is willing to work cannot be penalized for his inability to work for lack of posting. The argument of the respondents that the petitioner was not even available at the headquarters and it required a paper publication to notice him, does not appeal to this Court. If the respondents in their wisdom passed an order for transfer which they themselves made in effective from its very inception, did not pay heed to the repeated pleas of the employee for appropriate posting, surely the respondents did not expect the petitioner, qualified doctor, holding the rank of Assistant Professor at the relevant time, to wander around the corridors of the secretariat for the egoistic satisfaction of the powers that it be. The petitioner is held entitled to full salary for the period between 2.11.1996 to 20.10.1998. It is left open for the respondents consider the desirability of proceeding appropriately against those who committed this administrative lapses leading to the State having to pay its employee without opportunity to take work from the employee and recover the salary for the period from the salary of the delinquent officials. Let such payment be made to the petitioner along with 3% interest within a period of three months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)