Salary is not payable to a government servant who declines to serve at the posted station.

The petitioner, a Government servant, was transferred from Delhi to Chennai on 9 December 2024, joined Chennai on 27 January 2025, and was transferred to Coimbatore on 28 January 2025.

He claimed to have worked at Coimbatore until 11 June 2025, but alleged that his salary from 28 March 2025 onwards was withheld.

He had applied for casual/earned leave and subsequently submitted further leave requests, but there was no material showing that the leave applications had been sanctioned.

The respondents contended that the petitioner failed to register for AEBAS attendance, remained absent without sanctioned leave from 28 March to 12 May 2025, and joined on 13 May 2025 with a medical certificate.

On 12 June 2025, the petitioner voluntarily relocated to Delhi and thereafter did not report for duty at Coimbatore, where he continued to be posted.

The Central Administrative Tribunal, while disposing of the petitioner’s OA, directed him to submit posting preferences and directed the respondents to reconsider his promotional posting and examine his claim regarding leave and consequential benefits.

In the writ proceedings, the petitioner sought interim release of salary from 28 March 2025 onwards.

The High Court considered only that interim salary claim; the merits of the challenge to the Tribunal’s order remained to be considered separately.

Whether the petitioner was entitled, by way of interim relief, to release of salary from 28 March 2025 onwards despite his alleged absence and lack of sanctioned leave

Whether the petitioner could claim salary after 12 June 2025 when, despite being posted at Coimbatore, he voluntarily relocated to Delhi and did not render service at Coimbatore

Whether the petitioner could claim salary for 14 May to 11 June 2025 without documentary proof that he had actually worked at Coimbatore during that period

The Court applied Fundamental Rule 17(1), under which a Government servant begins to draw the pay and allowances attached to a post from the date of assuming its duties and ceases to draw them upon ceasing to discharge those duties; an employee absent without authority is not entitled to pay and allowances during such absence.

It also referred to Fundamental Rule 17-A, under which unauthorized absence or desertion of post may interrupt service unless otherwise regularised by the competent authority.

The Court further applied the general principle that a Government servant cannot unilaterally refuse to serve at the station to which he is posted, relocate to a station of his choice, and nevertheless demand salary for services allegedly rendered there.

The Court held that the petitioner had been paid salary up to 27 March 2025 and that, from 28 March to 13 May 2025, he admittedly did not work at Coimbatore.

Although he claimed to have submitted leave applications, he produced no material establishing that the leave had been sanctioned; therefore, the requirements of FR 17(1) were not satisfied for payment during that period.

For 14 May to 11 June 2025, the petitioner asserted that he had worked at Coimbatore, but the respondents disputed this and he produced no documentary evidence of such service.

Finally, from 12 June 2025 onwards, the petitioner voluntarily shifted to Delhi and did not report at Coimbatore, his official place of posting.

Under FR 17(1) and the principle that salary follows the discharge of duties at the authorised place of posting, he could not claim salary for a station where he neither reported nor rendered service.

His claim for 28 March to 13 May 2025 failed because his absence was unsupported by proof of sanctioned leave; his claim for 14 May to 11 June 2025 failed for want of evidence that he had worked; and his claim after 12 June 2025 failed because he had voluntarily relocated to Delhi instead of serving at Coimbatore.

CM Application No. 72684/2025 seeking interim release of salary was dismissed.