The principle of 'no work no pay' does not apply when an employee is prevented from working by the employer's unjust actions, especially after judicial reinstatement.

1. Heard Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the respondent-institution and the approval was granted by the District Inspector of Schools on 28.5.1994. The petitioner joined the institution on 30.5.1994 after issuance of appointment letter. The petitioner was however, no paid salary and thereafter, on 7.6.1994 the District Inspector of Schools passed an order suspending the operation of the order dated 28.5.1994 granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner. Against the aforesaid order dated 7.6.1994, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.24031 of 1994. In the meantime, an order was passed directing payment of salary to another employee Suhail Alam Numani on 7.6.1997, who was also selected along with the petitioner on the ground that he was selected on the post held by the petitioner. The aforesaid order dated 7.6.1997 was subject matter of challenge by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.20339 of 1997 wherein an interim order was granted on 23.6.1997 staying the effect and operation of the order dated 29.5.1997 and 9.6.1997. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by judgment dated 19.9.1997 and the order of the Director of Education dated 29.5.1997 was quashed and a direction was issued for fresh decision and same direction being issued in Writ Petition No.24031 of 1994. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:-

"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition no.20339 of 1997 is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.5.1997 is hereby quashed and respondent no.1 is directed to decide the matter a fresh in accordance with law by a reasoned order.

However, it will be open to the parties to submit a fresh representation along with a certified copy of this order and a true copy of the writ petition before respondent no.1. On such representation being made, respondent no.1 shall dispose of the same by a reasoned order within two months from the date of submission of the representation. The writ petition no.24031 of 1994 stands disposed of in view of the direction given. The parties shall bear their own costs."

3. In pursuance to the aforesaid judgment dated 19.9.1997, on 27.2.1998 the Director of Education passed an order holding the petitioner's appointment to be not in accordance with law and the claim of Suhail Alam Numani was also rejected. The petitioner thereafter, has filed Writ Petition No.9925 of 1998 challenging the order dated 27.2.1998. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by judgment dated 5.10.2023. The operative portion of the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereunder:-

"13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the statutory requirement of publication of advertisement in widely circulated newspaper is in respect of appointments of Heads and teachers of an educational institution, as per Regulation 10 of Chapter 2 of the Regulations, whereas the Court does not find any such provision under Chapter 3 which is meant for filling up of post of non teaching staff.

14. Even otherwise, if the constitutional mandate enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is looked into, the Court finds that there were two paper publications at least one of which was a widely circulated newspaper published form Varanasi, whereas the institution is located at Azamgarh and there was local publication also from another newspaper published from Azamgarh.

15. In view of the above, the selection and appointment of the petitioner on this score could not be dislodged and there