IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 2405 of 2008. Decided on: 7.4.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Shri Ajit Singh … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy.A.G. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petitioner was granted the status of Work Charged Beldar on 1.12.1969. He was retired on 31.7.1992. He approached the learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal by way of original application No. 1687 of 1993 assailing the decision of the State to retire him on 31.7.1992 instead of 31.7.1998. His precise case before the learned Tribunal was that his date of birth has been recorded in the school leaving certificate as 8.1.1938, however, in the service book his date of birth has been recorded as 27.1.1932. The learned Tribunal directed the original application to be treated as representation and to be decided by the Secretary (PW) on 16.9.1993. The representation was allowed by the Secretary (PW) on 16.11.1993. Consequently, the petitioner was permitted to join 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 his duties on 19.4.1993. He was not paid the salary for the period with effect from 31.7.1992 to 19.4.1994. Mr. Vinod Gupta has strenuously argued that the petitioner had to superannuate on 31.7.1998 and not on 31.7.1992. The representation made by his client was allowed and he was permitted to join his duties on 19.4.1994 and in these circumstances his client is entitled to get the salary with effect from 31.7.1992 to 19.4.1994. He lastly contended that his client had been prevented from discharging the duties illegally with effect from 31.7.1992 to 19.4.1994 and the principle of “no work, no pay” could not be invoked by the State Government. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has argued that it was a case of re-employment/re-engagement on 19.4.1994 and on that count the petitioner cannot be granted salary with effect from 31.7.1992 to 19.4.1994. I have heard the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully. The date of birth of the petitioner as per school leaving certificate was 8.1.1938. In the service book his date of birth has been recorded as 27.1.1932. His representation was allowed by a self-contained order passed by the Secretary (PW) on 16.11.1993. The petitioner has resumed his duties on 19.4.1994. The petitioner was to retire on the basis of his date of birth recorded in the school leaving certificate in the year 1998 and not on 31.7.1992. The petitioner was ready and willing to discharge his duties as Work Charged Beldar. He was prevented by the State from discharging his duties while illegally retiring him on 31.7.1992 3 instead of 31.7.1998. In these circumstances, the principle of “no work, no pay” shall not be applicable. The petitioner is deemed to be in regular employment from 31.7.1992 to 19.4.1994. His appointment could not be treated as fresh engagement on 19.4.1994. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. K.V. Jankiraman and others, (1991) 4 Supreme Court Cases 109 have held that the principle of “no work, no pay” shall not apply when the employee is ready and willing to work. However, he was prevented from doing so by the employer. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay salary to the petitioner for the period with effect from 31.7.1992 to 19.4.1994 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum within a period of eight weeks from today. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. April 7, 2009. (cr)