The principle of 'no work no pay' is inapplicable when an employee is willing to work but is prevented from doing so by the employer's actions or failure to comply with reinstatement orders, entitling the employee to full back wages for the period of forced absence.

ORDER

The original petitioner has filed this petition praying for following reliefs:-

"(i) That, the respondents be directed to pay arrear of salary w.e.f. Jan. 2001 till Feb. 2014 with the interest of Rs. 18% Ρ.Α.

(ii) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to fix the pay as per the 5th and 6th pay commission recommendation.

(iii) That, the respondents may kindly be further directed to the CPF fund to the petitioner as per entitlement.

iv) That, the other relief doing justice including cost be awarded."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the original petitioner was initially appointed on the post of UDT w.e.f.01/07/1974 in Rishi Galav Middle School, Morena (M.P.)/respondent no.4 which is an Aided Institution receiving grant-in-aid by the State Government. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was working continuously before the said institution till 08/02/2002, vide order dated 08/02/2002 (Annexure-P/3), the services of the petitioner was terminated by the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order before the District Education Officer and vide order dated 04/10/2002, District Education Officer has quashed the termination order dated 08/02/2002 and directed to respondent no.4 to re-instate the petitioner's services and to pay balance salary to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in compliance of the aforesaid order, joining of the petitioner has not been accepted by respondent no.4. Thereafter, the appeal was filed before CEO, Jila Panchayat Morena. The said appeal has been rejected by the CEO on the ground of maintainability and again on 21/01/2008, the CEO, Jila Panchayat has passed the similar order that he is not having jurisdiction to decide the appeal. Thereafter, the District Education Officer vide order dated 02/05/2008 and 04/09/2008 directed respondent no.4 to accept joining of the petitioner. Again vide order dated 24/01/2009, the District Education Officer directed to respondent nos.5 and 6 to accept joining of the petitioner but respondents no.5 and 6 have not accepted joining of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner filed W.P. No.1236/2009(s) for direction to the respondents to join the services of the petitioner and to pay arrears of salary. The aforesaid petition has been decided vide order dated 07/02/2012. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred Review Petition No.361/2012 which was disposed of vide order dated 19/10/2012 directing the District Education Officer, Morena to take proper steps regarding implementation of order dated 04/10/2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the District Education Officer has passed order dated 10/02/2014 and thereby respondents no.5 and 6 have accepted the joining of the petitioner on 19/02/2014 and thereafter the petitioner was retired w.e.f. 31/07/2022 on attaining the age of superannuation. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that respondents have not paid retiral dues as also not paid the salary from 08/02/2002 till 19/02/2012. He also submitted that when the retiral dues were not paid, the petitioner submitted representation but the respondents have not considered the same, therefore, the present petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that order dated 04/10/2002 passed by the District Education Officer was never set- aside/quashed by any higher authority and despite order dated 04/10/2002, respondents no.5 and 6 have not accepted joining of the petitioner and they have not paid salary to the petitioner from 08/02/2002. Learned counsel also submitted that the