Unauthorized Absence Following Transfer Cannot Be Treated as Duty Despite Pending Representations on Medical Grounds

The applicant, a Post Graduate Teacher (Biology), was transferred from Port Blair to North Andaman on 24.12.2020 and was relieved of her duties on 31.03.2021.

Instead of joining the new post, she sought retention in Port Blair on medical grounds, meanwhile performing COVID-19 management duty from 03.05.2021 to 27.07.2021.

On 28.07.2021, she was directed to appear before a Medical Board, which recommended her posting in an area with specialist medical care; consequently, her transfer was modified and she joined DIET, Garacharma on 30.11.2021.

The respondents treated her absence from 28.07.2021 to 29.11.2021 as "Extraordinary Leave (EOL) without medical certificate" (subsequently adjusted with EL and HPL at retirement).

The applicant challenged this, praying that the period be treated as "on duty" due to administrative delays in processing her medical report and modified transfer.

1. Whether the period of absence between the completion of COVID-19 duty and joining the modified place of posting (28.07.2021 to 29.11.2021) can be treated as "spent on duty" when the employee failed to report to the original transferred station.

2. Whether administrative delay in processing a representation/medical board report entitles an employee to remain away from work without being marked as absent.

Rule 32 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 regarding the grant of Extraordinary Leave.

Fundamental service principle that a government servant is duty-bound to carry out transfer orders, and merely making a representation for cancellation or modification does not absolve the employee of the responsibility to report to the new place of posting.

The "no work, no pay" logic underlies the regularization of unauthorized absence as EOL when no other leave is applicable or sought.

The Tribunal observed that the applicant was relieved from her original post on 31.03.2021 but failed to join at Sita Nagar (North Andaman) despite explicit directions.

While her COVID duty was regularized as "on duty," her subsequent release from said duty on 27.07.2021 necessitated her reporting to her then-current posting at Sita Nagar.

The Court reasoned that the facilitation of a Medical Board and the eventual modification of her transfer were "sympathetic measures" by the respondents which did not create a legal right for the applicant to remain absent without authority.

The delay in the Medical Board’s report or the issuance of the modified order does not shift the burden to the state, as the applicant chose not to join her sanctioned post during the pendency of her representation.

The O.A. was dismissed as there is no merit in the claim to treat such absence as "on duty", and the respondents' action of regularizing the period through a combination of Earned Leave, Half Pay Leave, and Extraordinary Leave was upheld.