IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2771 of 2024 ======================================================

Dr. Waquar Ahmad ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar & Ors.

... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Sr. Advocate Md. Tauseef Waquar, Advocate Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate Ms. Shreyashi Raj, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jitendra Kumar, AC to AAG- 9 For the M.U. : Mr. Faiz Ahmad, Advocate ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

5 09-02-2026 Heard Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Faiz Ahmed, learned Advocate for the University. The State is represented through Mr. Jitendra Kumar.

2. After taking this Court through the various Annexures appended to the writ petition and the averments made therein, learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioner has vehemently contended that the facts are writ large that the petitioner has been precluded from discharging his duty on the post of Associate Professor in the Department of English, despite the revocation of his suspension and his consequent joining in the College. The series of representations brought to the knowledge of the Principal of the College as well as authorities of the University as to how and in what manner he has not been allowed to discharge the duty. In such premise, request has been made for his deputation to any other College, but the same has not been done and finally the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2022. Admittedly, at no point of time any action has been taken by the College and the University and for the first time the Principal, Gaya College, Gaya has come out with letter no. 350/2023 dated 02.03.2023 (Annexure-10) that after submitting his joining on 27.11.2019, the petitioner has all along remained absent till retirement and thus he has not been allowed the salary for the period from his joining to the College after revocation of suspension till his superannuation.

3. The afore noted stand of the Principal is said to be not only erroneous, but contrary to the stand of the University taken before this Court in C.W.J.C.No. 9294 of 2022 where the learned Advocate for the University apprised this Court that as far as the arrears of salary for the period December, 2019 to 31.01.2022 is concerned, the same is under the process and only required to be computed. It was also submitted in the Court that all the admissible salary would be paid to the petitioner within a period of four weeks.

4. Heavy reliance has been placed on a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, reported in, (1991) 4 SCC 109 especially para. 25 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court underscored that the normal rule of “no work no pay” is not applicable to cases such as the present one where the employee although he is willing to work is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his. This is not a case where the employee remains away from work for his own reasons, although the work is offered to him.

5. Reliance has also been placed on a decision rendered in the case of Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah, reported in, (2007) 7 SCC 689, where the Court categorically emphasized that even in absence of statutory provision, normal rule is “no work no pay”. However, in appropriate cases, a court of law may, nay must, take into account all the facts in their entirety and pass an appropriate order in consonance with law. The court, in a given case, may hold that the person was willing to work but was illegally and unlawfully not allowed to do so and thus in such circumstances direct the authority to grant him all benefits considering “as if he had worked”.

6. Referring to one another ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of J. N. Srivastava V