G.N. MOHANTY v. UNION OF INDIA
Application of 'No Work No Pay' Principle to Unauthorized Absence Following Transfer; Employee's Obligation to Report to New Posting Despite Challenging Transfer Order.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:7853-DB
Decision Date: 02-04-2026
List of Laws
Constitution of India, Article 226; Fundamental Rules, Rule 17(1) and 17-A; Airports Authority of India (General Conditions of Service and Remuneration of Employees) Regulations, 2003; Service Law - Principle of 'No Work No Pay'; Service Law - Transfer and Joining Time
- Facts: The Petitioner, an Aerodrome Assistant at the Airports Authority of India (AAI), was transferred from Mumbai to Bhubaneshwar via a routine order dated 29 March 2016. Despite his representations and grievance applications being rejected, the Petitioner failed to report to the new place of posting. He was eventually relieved of his duties in Mumbai on 2 December 2016 with instructions to join at Bhubaneshwar. Instead of joining, he challenged the transfer before the High Court. During the pendency of that earlier petition, the AAI's Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) cancelled his transfer on 17 August 2017, allowing him to continue in Mumbai. The Petitioner then sought salary and allowances for the intervening period (3 December 2016 to 18 September 2017) during which he had not reported for work at either location. The GRC rejected this claim on 18 August 2023, treating the period as "dies non".
- Procedural Posture: The Petitioner approached the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the GRC's order dated 18 August 2023 and a direction to the Respondents to treat the absence period as duty for the purpose of pay and allowances.
- Issue: Whether an employee who fails to report to a new place of posting following a transfer order is entitled to salary for the period of absence if the transfer order is subsequently cancelled or set aside.
- Holding: No, the Petitioner is not entitled to salary for the period of unauthorized absence based on the principle of "no work, no pay".
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that a transfer is an incident of service and an employee has no vested right to remain at one station. Upon the issuance of a transfer and relieving order, the Petitioner was legally obligated to report to the new station, even if "without prejudice". The Petitioner's failure to join at Bhubaneshwar constituted an unauthorized absence. The Court held that the AAI HR Manual clauses regarding "joining time" only apply when an employee actually joins the new post. Relying on "S.C. Saxena Vs. Union of India", the Court emphasized that an employee cannot take advantage of their own wrong by staying away from work. Furthermore, under Fundamental Rule 17(1) and AAI Regulations, 2003, "unauthorized absence" results in a break in service and disentitles the employee to pay. The subsequent cancellation of the transfer does not regularize the prior period of willful absence for the purpose of salary.
🔒 For Members Only