IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7066 of 2000 MANJU SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 05 01.4.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 3.5.2000 of the Secretary, Secondary, Primary and Adult Education rejecting her claim for salary applying the principle of “no work no pay”. The petitioner who was an Assistant Teacher at the Government Basic School Usba was transferred by Memo No. 726 dated 5.9.1991 to the Rajkiya Buniadi Abheyashala, Mahendru. She was not allowed to join the transferred post on the premise that there was no vacancy. She came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2103 of 1994. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 2.3.1994 the joining of the petitioner was accepted on 24.3.1994. This resulted in denial of salary to her in between the period 7.9.1991 to 23.3.1994. The petitioner came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9201 of 1998 agitating her claim for arrears of salary as noticed above. She was relegated to the statutory remedy of appeal and in pursuance of which the 2 impugned order dated 3.5.2000 has been passed. The impugned order runs into 22 pages and over 17 paragraphs. Orders of transfer and postings are the employer’s prerogative. Once an order of transfer is issued by the employer there attaches a presumption that it is in accordance with law. Whether there be a vacancy or not for the incumbent to join in pursuance of such an order is the outlook of the employer and not the person transferred. Once an order of transfer is issued, there shall be a presumption of a vacancy at the transferred place. If an order of transfer cannot be implemented in absence of a vacancy the remedy lies with the employer himself. The employer cannot at this stage blame the Government Servant for non-joining, for denial of salary on principle of “no work no pay”. Unless the employer directed the Government servant to join at any other place by modification/cancellation of the earlier transfer. In the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the joining of the petitioner at the very same School where she had been earlier transferred and directed to join, but joining was not being accepted on the ground of absence of vacancy was accepted only 3 after orders were passed in a writ application preferred by her before this Court. To this Court that clinches the issue. The stand of the petitioner, of the respondents refusing to accept her joining was vindicated by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2103 of 1994. If that be the correct position, the petitioner cannot be faulted with on principle of “no work no pay”. This factual position is not demolished in the impugned order. The petitioner is, therefore, held entitled to the arrears of salary for the aforesaid period. The writ application stands allowed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)