The principle of 'No Work, No Pay' cannot be invoked when an employee is willing to work but is kept out due to the actions of the employer, which were ultimately declared illegal by judicial orders.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)--Present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

"i. Set aside the order dated 20.12.2018;

ii. Direct the Respondents to pass an appropriate order regarding payment of full back wages/salary along with all allowances, increments, MACPs, continuity of pay scale, etc. in time bound manner, with effect from the date of suspension i.e. 31.01.2002 along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date the full back wages/salary along with all allowances, increments, MACPs, continuity of pay scale, etc. were due till the date of final payment.

iii. Direct the Respondents to forthwith deposit the Petitioner's share of gratuity, provident fund, etc. in the requisite accounts with effect from the date of suspension i.e. 31.01.2002;"

2. The matter has a chequered history and the facts to the extent necessary and relevant are as follows:

(A) Petitioner was appointed to the post of PGT (Physics) vide letter dated 24.07.1997 on probation for one year extendable at the discretion of Respondent No. 1/Delhi Police Public School (hereinafter referred to as the `School'). Services of the Petitioner were confirmed w.e.f. 01.08.1998 as PGT (Physics) by the School.

(B) By an order dated 30.01.2002, services of the Petitioner were terminated without any inquiry or show cause notice and without the mandatory approval of the Director of Education (DoE) on grounds of alleged negligent conduct in performing his duties, neglecting classes, misbehaviour, etc. with three months' salary in lieu of notice period from 01.02.2002 to 30.04.2002.

(C) Petitioner filed an appeal bearing Appeal No. 3/2002 before the Delhi School Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') on the ground that the termination had been effected without any inquiry as required under Rules 117 to 120 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the `1973 Rules') and without approval from DoE. The Tribunal, vide judgment dated 09.01.2003, allowed the appeal of the Petitioner and set-aside the order dated 30.01.2002 terminating his services. Against the order of the Tribunal, School preferred a writ petition before this Court in C.W.P. 1509/2003, which was disposed of as withdrawn by the School, without reserving any right or seeking liberty to conduct an inquiry into the allegations.

(D) For reasons best known to the School, an order was issued on 06.10.2003 placing the Petitioner under suspension in terms of Rule 115(4) of 1973 Rules, with retrospective effect from 31.01.2002. On 07.11.2003, a letter was issued by the School placing the Petitioner under suspension from the date of his original termination i.e. 31.01.2002 till further orders. On 05.12.2003, DoE accorded approval for suspension of the Petitioner and soon thereafter, on 03.01.2004, School issued a Memorandum of Charge to the Petitioner and informed him that an inquiry would be held against him under Rule 118 of 1973 Rules.

(E) In the meanwhile, Petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 8613/2003, challenging the order dated 06.10.2003 placing him under suspension. Vide order dated 04.01.2005, this Court allowed the writ petition and issued directions to the School to pay to the Petitioner his salary, emoluments and other dues from 01.02.2002 till the date of suspension, holding that suspension could only be prospective.

(F) The inquiry proceedings held pursuant to the charge sheet dated 03.01.2004, culminated into order of penalty of `removal from service' on 13.07.2005. Petitioner assailed the penalty imposed on him in Appeal No. 31/2005 and the Tribunal vide order dated 11.01.2011, quashed the penalty order and directed the School to reinstate the Petitioner with full back wages.

(G) School challenged the order of the Tribunal dated 11.01.2011 before this Court in W.P.(C) 3423/2011. By a judgment dated 17.09.2018, Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal to the extent of quashing the penalty order, however, insofar as the direct