The principle of 'no work no pay' cannot be applied when employees are prevented from working due to the employer's fault, and salary recovery orders are arbitrary if appointments are valid.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. The petitioners have challenged the order contained in Memo No. 583 dated 29.03.2023, whereby the District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar has directed the petitioners to refund the amount of salary which has been paid to them for the period they were not in service on the ground that certificates of the petitioners have not been verified. The corrigendum contained in Memo No. 596 dated 31.03.2023 to the office order dated 29.03.2023 is also under challenge, by which District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar has modified the office order to the extent that the basis of salary payment order issued vide office order no. 416 dated 03.03.2023 in light of letter No. 595 dated 13.08.2021, mentioned in Directorate letter No. 2564 dated 7.12.2022, is not covered by the judgment passed on 10.12.2019 in L.P.A. No. 793 of 2018.

3. Briefly stated, the petitioners were appointed on the post of Assistant Teachers in different subjects in the district of Deoghar, pursuant to Advertisement No. 04 of 2015. It is further case of the petitioners that though their appointments were cancelled, but after the order and direction passed by this Court in several writ petitions preferred by the petitioners or similarly situated persons, they were reappointed in service and the order of cancellation of appointment was quashed and set aside. It may also be stated that the said orders passed by Writ Court has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in different letters patent appeals. Thereafter, office order dated 1.6.2022 was issued by which the petitioners were reappointed after examining and verifying all the certificates and testimonials of the petitioners. By letter no. 1144 dated 14.06.2022, the District Superintendent of Education sought opinion from the office of Director, Primary Education regarding payment of non-working period of the petitioners and accordingly, after receiving direction from the office of Director, Primary Education, School Education and Literacy Department, the respondent no. 4 (District Superintendent of Education) vide memo no. 416 dated 3.3.2023 issued direction for payment of arrears of salary for the period when the petitioners were out of service. However, the respondent no. 4 (District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar) has issued office order contained in memo no. 583 dated 29.3.2023, by which the petitioners were directed to deposit the amount of salary which has already been paid to them while they were out of service on the ground that verification of their testimonials are still pending. Therefore, the said order dated 29.03.2023 was modified by issuance of corrigendum dated 31.03.2023 to some extent.

4. Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently assails the impugned orders and submits that the reasoning assigned for refunding salary for the period when the petitioners were not working is not tenable. Learned counsel submits that at the time of joining, the petitioners have already submitted their testimonials and the respondent no. 4 has written to the concerned authority to get the certificates verified from the competent authority of all 180 newly appointed Assistant Teachers. Learned counsel further submits that after lapse of seven years, the respondents are taking flimsy ground of non-verification of the testimonials of the petitioners to justify the impugned orders which is not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further submits that since the petitioners were appointed after fulfilling the eligibility criterion as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement, the petitioners are entitled for salary even for the period when they were out of service. Learned counsel submits that even otherwise, the District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar has overreached the power of the District Establishment Committee, as also the Director, Primary Education, inasmuch as, the petitioners were reappointed by the decision ta