1. Heard counsels for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the office order No. 1378 dated 18.09.2010, wherein the petitioner had been denied salary for intervening period with effect from 01.01.2008 to 17.09.2010, during which he was illegally/forcibly kept out of service on account of illegal/forceful retirement with effect from 31.12.2007, treating his imaginary date of birth as 01.01.1948, applying the principle of “No work no pay”, which is absolutely illegal.

3. Brief facts:

The petitioner has claimed his date of birth i.e. 10.06.1953 as per Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, wherein his date of birth has been mentioned as 10.06.1953.

The petitioner had been appointed in the respondent-Company on the post of Fitter (Class-III) post and accordingly he had joined the service but his date of birth has been mentioned as 22 years (approx.) on the date of employment i.e. on 01.04.1972.

This fact has come to the knowledge of petitioner when the service excerpts had been circulated in the year 1987. There was a large scale discrepancies in the date of birth and as such, service excerpts had been circulated among the employees, inviting their objections.

4. As per petitioner, he had objected his date of birth by supplying the Board Examination Certificate, which had been issued in the year 1965 i.e. much prior to his date of appointment.

5. It is further case of the petitioner that in 2002, again the petitioner had raised objection with the respondents-authorities, the respondents-authorities had written a letter for verification of the certificate.

6. In spite of above facts, his date of birth had not been corrected by the authority and retirement notice had been issued for retiring the petitioner with effect from 31.12.2007 treating his imaginary date of birth as 01.01.1948. This retirement notice had been challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.(S) No. 5901 of 2007, which had been disposed of vide order dated 28.05.2009 remanding the matter to the respondents-Company for determination of his date of birth, keeping in view the Board Certificate.

7. The said order of learned Single Judge had been challenged by the respondent-Company by filing L.P.A No. 506 of 2009 which had been dismissed vide order dated 15.07.2010.

8. In spite of dismissal of L.P.A. No. 506 of 2009, the order had not been complied and only when the strict order had been passed by this Court in Contempt Civil No. 670 of 2009, then only the order of reinstatement had been passed by correcting his date of birth, which is impugned in the writ petition.

9. The impugned order has further stipulated that the petitioner will not be entitled for any salary for intervening period i.e. 01.01.2008 to 17.09.2010 on the principle of “No work no pay”.

10. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent and there is no dispute so far as factual aspect is concerned. The only issue involved is a legal issue, whether the principal of “No work no pay” is applicable or not, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

11. For elucidating his contention, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment reported in the case of Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board Versus C. Muddaiah (2007) 7 SCC 689 Para 33 and 34, which are quoted herein below:

33. The matter can be looked at from another angle also. It is true that while granting a relief in favour of a party, the court must consider the relevant provisions of law and issue appropriate directions keeping in view such provisions. There may, however, be cases where on the facts and in the circumstances, the court may issue necessary directions in the larger interest of justice keeping in view the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. Take a case, where ex facie injustice has been meted out to an employee. In spite of the fact that he is entitled to certain benefits, they had not been given to him. His representations have been illegally and unjustifiably tur