Unauthorized absence following a transfer order attracts "no work, no pay," notwithstanding the order's subsequent cancellation.

The Petitioner, an employee of the Air Traffic Control (ATC) under the Airports Authority of India (AAI), was transferred from Mumbai to Bhubaneswar via an order dated 29 March 2016

Despite several representations and a subsequent grievance rejection on 22 November 2016, a Relieving Order was issued on 2 December 2016, directing him to report to Bhubaneswar immediately

The Petitioner challenged the transfer in an earlier Writ Petition (WP No. 1017 of 2017). During its pendency, the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) cancelled the transfer on 17 August 2017, allowing him to continue in Mumbai

The Petitioner did not report to Bhubaneswar during the intervening period (3 December 2016 to 18 September 2017) and later sought salary and allowances for this duration

By an order dated 18 August 2023 (the Impugned Order), the GRC treated the period of absence as ‘dies non’ based on the principle of "no work, no pay," leading to the present Writ Petition

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to salary, pay, and allowances for the period between his relieving order and the cancellation of his transfer (3 December 2016 to 18 September 2017) during which he remained absent from duty.

2. Whether the intervening period between the issuance and cancellation of a transfer order can be treated as "joining time" under the AAI HR Manual if the employee never reported to the new place of posting.

3. Whether the classification of the period of unauthorized absence as ‘dies non’ constitutes a legal error or a penalty.

The court primarily applied the "No Work No Pay" principle and the doctrine of "unauthorized absence" as defined under Clauses 14 and 15 of the AAI (General Conditions of Service and Remuneration of Employees) Regulations, 2003, which stipulate that an employee absent without authority is not entitled to pay

The Court further relied on Fundamental Rule (FR) 17(1) and FR 17-A, which provide that unauthorized absence results in a break in service and forfeiture of pay

It applied the precedent from S.C. Saxena v. Union of India, which establishes that an employee must report to the place of transfer and cannot choose to remain absent while challenging the order

Additionally, the court cited Sukhdarshan Singh v. State of Punjab, holding that ‘dies non’ is not a punishment but a consequence of absence

The Court rejected the Petitioner’s contention that the intervening period should be treated as "joining time" under Clause 7.1 of the AAI HR Manual. It reasoned that "joining time" is only admissible when an employee actually hands over charge and proceeds to the new station; since the Petitioner never reported to Bhubaneswar, he could not claim this benefit

The Court emphasized that a transfer order must be complied with immediately, even if challenged, and the Petitioner had no vested right to remain in Mumbai

The Petitioner’s argument that he was prevented from working because his name was removed from the Mumbai duty roster was dismissed; the Court held he cannot take advantage of his own wrong (Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria) as his duty was to report to Bhubaneswar

Therefore, the absence was "unauthorized," and the GRC correctly applied the statutory regulations and the "No Work No Pay" principle

The Court found that the GRC had passed a reasoned, speaking order in compliance with natural justice and the previous directions of the High Court

The Court held that the Petitioner is not entitled to salary or allowances for the period from 3 December 2016 to 18 September 2017, as he was unauthorizedly absent from duty by failing to report to the transferred post in Bhubaneswar

The treatment of the period as ‘dies non’ was found to be legally valid and not a penalty. Rule was discharged with no order as to costs