( 1 ) BY means of this appeal the order dated 27/12/1996 passed by the Division Bench of the A. P. High Court in writ appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, providing for regularising the period of absence of the respondent and for making payment of his salary has been impugned.

( 2 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent appearing in person.

( 3 ) IT appears that the respondent on his promotion as Manager was transferred from Hyderabad to the Aurangabad unit of Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. (ECIL) by order dated 2/5/1995. However, he had been making representations, etc. for his retention at Hyderabad office itself. Ultimately, it transpires that on 17/7/1995 the appellants passed an order relieving the respondent from ECIL, Hyderabad. The respondent is said to have applied for leave from 17/5/1995 to 19/7/1995, which was, however, not granted by the appellants. The respondent then filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the transfer order and an ex parte stay order was granted on 20/7/1995. According to the respondent, on 21/7/1995 he reported for joining and he also seems to have signed the attendance register. But there seems to be a dispute about his joining since according to the appellant the respondent had already been relieved on 17/7/1995.

( 4 ) THE respondent was not paid his salary, hence, he filed yet another Writ Petition No. 26350 of 1995, with a prayer for payment of his salary for the period from 17/7/1995 to 7/10/1995. He was being treated as absent from duty. The appellant moved an application for vacation of the stay order on 19/12/1995. On 8/4/1996 the stay order staying the transfer was vacated. The appeal preferred by the respondent against the order vacating the interim order of stay was dismissed on 26/4/1996. The two writ petitions, namely, one against the transfer order and the other for payment of salary, were heard and dismissed on 11/9/1996. Liberty was, however, granted to the respondent to make representations for his being retained at Hyderabad and for payment of his salary till he joins at Aurangabad. The respondent preferred two appeals but Appeal No. 1473 of 1996 preferred against the order of transfer was dismissed on 26/12/1996. Thus, the controversy relating to the transfer was set at rest since no appeal was preferred against the order dismissing the appeal in the matter of transfer of the respondent. The other appeal arising out of the proceedings for payment of the salary is the subject-matter of the present appeal before us.

( 5 ) THE Division Bench of the High Court, hearing the appeal relating to payment of salary, observed right in the beginning that since the appeal pertaining to the transfer matter had been dismissed, there was no merit in the appeal relating to payment of salary as well. The Court, however, tried to evolve the best-possible solution in the matter, in the given facts and circumstances of the case so as to avoid any problem or controversy in future. The Court thus passed an order with the agreement of the parties. The said order provides that the respondent would abide by the order of transfer and join his duty at Aurangabad. The present appellant employers were required to release the arrears of salary to the respondent, who may, even though be considered absent from duty without leave and it was further observed that such period may be treated as on extraordinary leave without any break in service. The order then observes that the counsel for the employer, the present appellant before us, also found nothing objectionable in the order passed though it might give some benefit to the respondent.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submits that the respondent had been relieved by passing the order dated 17/7/1995 and thereafter he remained absent. Under the rules, whatever period is admissible as earned leave that having been made available to the respondent, rest of the period is to be treated as the