JUDGMENT :

Rekha Borana, J.

1. The petitioners were appointed on various posts with the respondent Bank No. 3-Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. During the tenure of their services, the respondent Bank passed a resolution dated 25.05.2010, whereby, the superannuation age of the employees was reduced from 60 years to 58 years. The said resolution was challenged in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5332/2010, which was decided on 05.07.2011 and the respondent Bank was directed to reconsider the age of retirement and also to continue with the services of the employees. In pursuance to the directions of this Court, the respondent Bank reconsidered the issue but again took a resolution to fix the age of superannuation at 58 years. As a consequence, the petitioners stood retired.

2. The resolution dated 18.07.2011 was again challenged and vide interim order dated 06.09.2011, the effect and operation of the resolution was stayed. In consequence thereof, the petitioners were allowed to resume their duties.

3. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the Bank again took a resolution to increase the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. The statement to that effect was made before the Court on behalf of the respondent Bank and in view of the submission made, the petitions of the petitioners were dismissed as having become infructuous.

4. Meanwhile, the petitioners after completing the age of 60 years, superannuated.

5. The grievance in the present writ petition of the petitioners is that they were not paid the salary of the period during which they remained out of service because of the resolutions being passed by the Bank.

6. The period during which the petitioners remained out of service is as under:

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has averred that it was only on the basis of the submission made by the Bank that the earlier writ petition was rendered as infructuous as the Bank had promised the consequential benefits also in pursuance to the resolution.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed in Civil Appeal No. 5527/2012; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dayanand Chakrawarty & Ors. He has submitted that the employees had remained out of service only because of the wrong decision taken by the Bank and not because of any fault on their part.

9. Learned counsel has stated that even while passing the interim order dated 06.09.2011 in the earlier writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7263/2011), the issue pertaining to the arrears was kept pending by the Court for decision at the time of final hearing. But because of the petition being dismissed as infructuous, the same could not be decided at that stage.

10. Learned counsel further submitted that two employees namely Kailash Chandra Shotriya and Harish Chandra Joshi have been paid the arrears of salary of the disputed period by the Bank and the present petitioners have been denied the same without any plausible reason.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank has submitted that as the petitioners had not worked during the period as alleged, they were not entitled to the salary for that period on the principle of 'no pay no work'.

12. Learned counsel did not dispute the fact of the other two employees as named by the petitioners being paid the salary but submitted that the same was on medical grounds.

13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

14. It is clear on record that the respondent Bank had passed the resolutions dated 25.05.201