WP(C) 5351/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. BARUAH (Amitava Roy, J) The judgment and order dated 04.06.2010 passed by the learned Central Administra tive Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in O.A. No.170/2009 has been put to challenge in t he instant proceeding. We have heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the Railways/petitioners. Mr. A. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent who has entered appearance through a caveat. The caveat stands discharged. The respondent, who at the relevant time was the Sr. Scientific Research Assista nt in a Grade - D post to the Railways was promoted as Jr. Scientific Officer on adhoc basis vide order dated 05.12.1997. She was thereafter, reverted to her substantive post vide order dated 16.12.2003. The respondent having challenged t he said decision before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Be nch, Guwahati(hereinafter for short referred to as the Tribunal) in O.A. No.294 /2003, by its order dated 01.04.2004, the same was upheld. The petitioners’ as sailment of the said decision of the Tribunal passed in WP(C) No.5758/2004 was n egated by this Court on 13.09.2005, whereafter, the respondent was promoted to t he post of Jr. Scientific Officer, Grade - B again on adhoc basis. Before she a pproached the learned Tribunal with Original Application No.170/2009, again at t he intervening stages she endeavoured to receive the benefits of the higher post for the interregnum. The learned Tribunal entertained her claim for her pay and allowances in the post of Jr. Scientific Officer during this interval, i.e. 16. 12.2003 and 31.10.2005 and by the impugned judgment and order has directed the r elease thereof within a period of two months therefrom. Being aggrieved, the Rai lways are before this Court. Whereas Mr. S. Sarma has persuasively argued that as admittedly the respondent h as not discharged her duties in the post of Jr. Scientific Officer for the afore mentioned period and that the Railways had to borrow the services of other incum bents to get the works relatable to the said post performed during the same and that thus her claim for pay and allowance is apparently misconceived, Mr. A. Sar ma has maintained that as for all intents and purposes she had performed her dut ies as Jr. Scientific Officer during this period, the learned Tribunal was perfe ctly justified in directing the release of her entitlements relating to that po st. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the m aterials on record, we are inclined to sustain the finding of the learned Tribun al. Though, in recording the conclusion of ours, we are aware of the pleaded stand o f the petitioners/Railways that the respondent did not discharge her duties as J r. Scientific Officer during the period of 16.12.2003 and 31.10.2005 and that ha nds from South-Eastern Railway and others were to be borrowed for the same, we a re of the view having regard to the sequence of events that in the facts and cir cumstances of the present case the respondent ought not to be denied her pay and allowances for the period 16.12.2003 to 31.10.2005. As the factual background w ould demonstrate, immediately after she was reverted by the order dated 16.12.20 03 she had approached the learned Tribunal with O.A. No.294/2003, which was dec ided in her favour. The challenge to the Railways before this Court also failed whereafter, without questioning the legality and the validity of the determinat ion made by this Court in WP(C) No.5785/2004, the respondent was again promoted to the post of Jr. Scientific Officer on adhoc basis. In the above factual prem ise, the plea of the respondent that as she had not discharged her duties for th e post of Jr. Scientific Officer she would not be entitled to the difference of pay of the two posts does not appeal to us. The respondent having been kept out of the post of the Jr. Scientific Officer by a decision which she had not accepted and eventually quashed by the learned Tri bunal and this Court, the contention of the Railways of ’no work no pay’ by way of justification of the denial of pay and allowances for the post of Jr. Scienti fic Officer to her for the period 16.12.2003 to 31.10.2010, in our opinion is no t sustainable. The reasonings recorded by the learned Tribunal commend for accep tance. In the above view of the matter, the instant petition lacks in merit and is dism issed. We, however, make it clear that the present determination in the facts o f the present case would not be construed to be precedent in the near future. N o costs.