The principle of 'no work, no pay' cannot be invoked when an employee is unlawfully prevented from discharging their duties, affirming the entitlement to pay during such periods.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. A.H.M.R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. N.J. Khataniar, learned standing counsel for the respondents in Elementary Education Department.

2. The grievance, being sought to be addressed in this petition,filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner, namely, Hussain Ahmed Mazumder, is that while he was serving as Assistant Teacher of 69 North Nityanandapur L.P. School in the district of Hailakandi, he along with some others were convicted in Session Case No.38/2005, by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, under Section 302 IPC, vide judgment and order dated 29.11.2007 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default imprisonment for another period of 6 months. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction, had preferred an appeal before this Court, being Criminal Appeal No.10/2008 and vide judgment and order dated 03.04.2012, the petitioner was acquitted by this Court of the charge under Section 302 IPC. Accordingly, he was released from jail on 05.04.2012. Then the petitioner had submitted one representation on 25.05.2012, with a prayer to allow him to resume his duties as Assistant Teacher at 69 No. North Nityananadapur L.P. School with all service benefits, including back wages before the respondent authorities. But, his representation failed to evoke any response from the respondent authorities. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had preferred one writ petition, being WP(C) No.6420/2012, before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.05.2014 with a direction to reinstate him and also to release his salaries. But, for non-compliance of the order dated 23.05.2014, the petitioner was compelled to file one contempt case, being Cont.Cas(C) No.230/2015, and during the pendency of the said contempt petition, the respondent No.3, by passing speaking order dated 23.11.2016, vide Annexure-3, held that the petitioner is not entitled to back wages during the period of his custody i.e. from 29.11.2007 to 05.04.2012 and thereafter, directed the District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO), Hailakandi, to pass a speaking order after completion of departmental proceeding. Thereafter, the DEEO vide order dated 07.03.2017, passed a speaking order allowing the petitioner to join his service, but it was held that the petitioner is not entitled to back wages for the period from 29.11.2007 to 05.04.2012. Thereafter, a proposal for payment of arrear salary from 06.04.2012 up to 29.02.2016 was prepared by the authorities and forwarded the same to the respondent No.3 and during the progress of the aforementioned exercise, the petitioner filed another writ petition, being WP(C) No.5006/2018 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 21.01.2019 (Annexure-10), whereby the respondent No.3 was directed to pass necessary order for releasing his salary. But, the same was not complied with, for which the petitioner had preferred another contempt petition, being Cont.Cas(C) No.296/2019 and during pendency of the said proceeding, the respondent No.3 vide letter dated 04.01.2020 (Annexure-11) forwarded the proposal to the Govt. of Assam, Elementary Education Department, for according necessary sanction of an amount of Rs.12,02,666/-. But, in the meantime, the Government has declared lockdown on account of Covid-19 pandemic.And thereafter, the