In cases of wrongful/illegal termination or transfer, the employee is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages. The 'no work no pay' principle does not apply in cases of illegal transfer, and the employee is entitled to the monetary benefits for the period between the transfer and subsequent joining.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the order of the first respondent made in No.379/PONSHE/Estt./E2/2013 dated 21.01.2015 to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith regularize the period between 25.11.2013 and 29.06.2014 as duty for all purposes as per Fundamental Rules and to extend all benefits both service and monetary arising thereto.)

1. The claim of the petitioner seeking for salary and other monetary benefits from the date of his transfer till the date of his joining at the transferred place, i.e., between 26.11.2013 and 29.06.2014, was rejected by the first respondent herein through the impugned order, dated 21.01.2015, which is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The petitioner herein is a 100% visually challenged person. He was initially appointed as a Lecturer in English on 06.02.2009 at the third respondent College. During his employment, he was transferred on 25.11.2013 from the third respondent College to Rajiv Gandhi Arts and Science College, Thavalakuppam, Puducherry. The challenge to the transfer order before this Court in W.P.No.33715 of 2013, came to be dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 27.06.2014. As against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal in W.A.No.961 of 2014 and by an order, dated 10.09.2014, the order of the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition, as well as the transfer order, dated 25.11.2013, were set aside and the Writ Petition came to be allowed.

(ii) Pursuant to the order passed in the Writ Petition, the petitioner had joined at the transferred place in Rajiv Gandhi Arts and Science College on 30.06.2014. His request seeking for salaries for the period between 26.11.2013 and 29.06.2014 was rejected through the impugned order, dated 21.01.2015, by stating that since he had not objected the transfer order and had also not joined duty in the transferred post between 26.11.2013 and 29.06.2014, he is not entitled to claim salary for the said period on the principle of “no work no pay”. This rejection order is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

3. While the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the quashing of the transfer order by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.961 of 2014, the petitioner would be entitled for payment of the salaries between the period of transfer and his date of joining, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since the Hon'ble Division Bench had not ordered for payment of the monetary benefits during this period and also since the petitioner did not actually work, he is not entitled for any monetary benefits and as such, there is no illegality in the impugned order. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.P.Moideen Koya Vs. Government of Kerala and others, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 106 and Omprakash Verma and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, reported in (2010) 13 SCC 158, for the proposition that since the Hon'ble Division Bench had not ordered for payment of the monetary benefits, it is not open to the petitioner to once again re-agitate the claim, which could amount to res judicata. He also placed reliance on the case of Sukhdeo Pandey Vs. Union of India and another, reported in (2007) 7 SCC 455, for the ground that the petitioner is not entitled for salaries on the principle of 'no work no pay'.

4. The main ground of objection from the respondents seems to be that since the High Court had not directed for payment of the monetary benefits, while setting aside the order of transfer, the petitioner is not entitled for the same. In this connection, it would be relevant to refer to the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench passed in W.A.No.961 of 2014, dated 10.09.201