JUDGMENT

P. B. BAJANTHRI, J.:–

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

2. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:—

“1. That the present petition is being filed for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 20.09.2007 as contained in clause (2) passed by the respondent no. 2, vide letter No. 1117(4) (Annexure-1) and as an consequence for the direction to the respondent authorities for making of the payment of salaries to the petitioner for the period in between his dismissal and restatement (i.e. from 11.10.01 to 27.09.07) as directed by the order dated 26.06.06, passed in L.P.A. No. 946 of 2006, which interest. And also for any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is found entitled to.”

3. The petitioner was appointed as a Family Welfare Worker in the respondent-department on 27.03.1980. His services were terminated on 11.10.2004 on the alleged allegations that in the process of appointment there were certain irregularities. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of termination dated 11.10.2004 petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 14940 of 2004. Identical matters were stated to be pending before the L.P.A. Bench. Therefore, petitioner’s petition was clubbed with L.P.A. No. 946 of 2003. Both C.W.J.C. and L.P.A. were decided on 26.06.2006 and directed the concerned official respondents to reconsider the grievance of the petitioner and others. In this regard, competent authority constituted a Five Men Committee. The committee stated to have submitted a report while categorizing three issues. One of the category is relating to 91 persons including the petitioner in which the finding of the Five Men Committee is to the extent that petitioner and 90 persons were stated to be appointed. Their initial appointment were irregular.

4. In the light of these facts and circumstances, the competent authority has taken a decision to regularize the services of the petitioner and others. To that effect, an order was notified on 20th September, 2007. In the regularization order the official respondents imposed a condition that among petitioner and others are not entitled to salary for the intervening period from the date of termination till order dated 20th September, 2007 in relates to reinstatement.

5. The petitioner feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the condition imposed in the order of reinstatement dated 20th September, 2007, presented this petition.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that submission of Five Men Committee report and consequential order is only an eye-wash for the reasons that as to what is the actual irregularities in the process of selection and appointment was not made known by the Five Men Committee in their report so also condition in the consequential order on 20th September, 2007. In the absence of supporting reasons that there were irregularities in appointment, decision of the authorities in respect of petitioner’s appointment was not in accordance with relevant provision of law or to state that his initial appointment was irregular. In other words, authority’s decision is only conclusive and not supported by the material information to what extent appointment was irregular.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent resisted the aforesaid contention and submitted that 20th September, 2007 reinstatement of the petitioner and others with a rider that they are not entitled for salary during the intervening period from the date of termination till reinstatement is in order as their initial appointment was irregular and the same has been regularized w.e.f. 20th September, 2007. It is further submitted that one Malti Kumari who falls under 91 persons category filed a petition before this Court, namely, C.W.J.C. No. 2842 of 2012 and it was decided against her on 15.04.2013 while denying the salary on the principle of no work no pay. In the light of decision rendered in Malti Kumari case, petitioner is not entitled.

8. Heard learned counsels for r