CWP (T) No. 2523 of 2008 26.2.2009 Present: Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy.A.G. for respondents No. 1 & 2. The petitioner was appointed as Surveyor vide office order dated 23.5.1989. He joined his duties on 23.5.1989. However, vide order dated 30.4.1992, the date of appointment of the petitioner was ordered to be read as 28.1.1989 instead of 23.5.1989. His pay was also refixed w.e.f. 28.1.1989. He made representation to the concerned authority for payment of arrears of salary w.e.f. 28.1.1989 to 22.5.1989. However, the representation made by the petitioner was rejected on 24.3.1995 only on the ground that he did not work for the said period i.e. 28.1.1989 to 23.5.1989. It is evident from the above enumerated facts that the petitioner ought to have been appointed as Surveyor w.e.f. 28.1.1989. In continuance, he worked as work-charged Surveyor regularly w.e.f. 28.1.1989 to 22.5.1989. It is a case where the principle of “no work no pay” shall not be applicable. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held in Union of India and others Vs. K.V. Jankiraman and others, (1991) 4 Supreme Court Cases 109 that principle of “no work no pay” shall not apply where the person is ready and willing to discharge his duties and is not allowed to work without his fault. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held as under: “We are not much impressed by the contentions advanced on behalf of the authorities. 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. It is for this reason that F.R. 17 (1) will also be inapplicable to such cases.” It is only due to the mistake of the respondents that the petitioner has been deprived of discharging the duties of work-charged Surveyor w.e.f. 28.1.1989 onwards. In fact, he had been discharging the same duties even for the period in question as daily waged Surveyor. His case is also covered under the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure-PF dated 24.3.1995 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to release the arrears of salary to the petitioner for the period 28.1.1989 to 22.5.1989 within a period of four weeks from today. This amount shall also carry interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. February 26, 2009. (cr)