Absence of documentary proof regarding joining and unexplained delay in reporting for duty precludes relief for salary.

The petitioner, a Health Department employee, challenged the non-payment of salary, arrears, and increments. He contended that following transfer and relieving orders in July 2024, he reported for duty at the Block Medical Officer's office in Bandapal on 19.09.2024 but was not permitted to work.

The petitioner had previously filed two writ petitions (WPS No. 4261/2024 and 5784/2024) regarding his transfer.

The State argued that the petitioner failed to provide documentary evidence of his reporting date or proof of refusal by any authority.

A subsequent joining report dated 26.02.2026 (Annexure P/19) submitted by the petitioner made no mention of the alleged September 2024 joining.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release salary and allowances for the period of alleged non-permitted duty.

2. Whether the petitioner provided sufficient material evidence to substantiate his claim of reporting for duty in September 2024.

the principle that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued in the absence of requisite material evidence substantiating a legal right or a specific breach of duty.

Under service law principles in India, the right to salary is generally contingent upon the actual discharge of duties or a valid attempt to join that is unlawfully thwarted, both of which must be proved by the claimant through documentation such as joining reports or correspondence.

The Court found a significant discrepancy in the petitioner's evidentiary record. While the petitioner claimed to have joined on 19.09.2024, his own subsequent application dated 26.02.2026 (Annexure P/19) stated he was "giving his joining" pursuant to the July 2024 orders at that later date, without mentioning any prior attempt.

The Court observed that the petitioner failed to identify which specific authority refused to accept his joining or provide the exact period for which salary was claimed in the relief clause.

the Court determined that it was "crystal clear" that the petitioner only complied with the transfer orders in February 2026, rendering the claim for prior salary unsubstantiated.

the Court reserved liberty for the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the competent authority for the redressal of grievances regarding joining and non-payment of salary.