WA 414/2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) (Hazarika, J) Challenge in this Writ Appeal is made against the judgment and order dat ed 28.6.2006 passed in WP(C) No. 6018 of 2000 by the learned single Judge whereb y and whereunder the learned Single Judge refused to issue a writ of Mandamus ag ainst the respondents relating to release of arrear salaries with effect from 25 .3.1992 to 1.5.1995 to the petitioner for which he had approached the Court. 2. The brief facts as projected by the appellant are summarized as follows: The appellant herein as writ petitioner has approached the court for a d irection to the respondents to treat the period of service with effect from 25.3 .1992 to 01.05.1995 for the purpose of payment of pay and allowances as he was d eprived of payment for the aforesaid period though he submitted his joining repo rt to act as Science Graduate teacher at Rangapara Bengali High School, Sonitpur in pursuance of appointment letter dated 25.03.1992 issued by the Inspector of Schools, Sonitpur District Circle, Tezpur, as he was not allowed to join in the school by the Headmaster of the School depriving the benefits as aforesaid. 3. The denial of joining in the school culminated in filing the writ petiti on being Civil Rule No. 962 of 1993 which was heard and disposed of on 24.8.1994 by the court directing the Headmaster, Rangapara Bengali High School to allow h im to join subject to availability of the vacancy and in absence of post being v acant directed the Inspector of Schools, Sonitpur to appoint him in any school w ithin the aforesaid district as Science teacher within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of the order. 4. In pursuance of the order dated 24.8.1994 passed in Civil Rule No. 962 o f 1993 the Inspector of Schools, Sonitpur issued a fresh order of appointment on 29.04.1995 as Science Graduate teacher in the same school and accordingly he jo ined in the school on 02.05.1995. The said order of appointment was given effect to from the date of joining the school meaning thereby that the appointment was not given with retrospective effect i.e. from the date of initial appointment d ated 25.03.1992 and therefore he had made a grievance to treat his service with effect from 25.03.1992 with consequential benefits. 5. The grievances of the appellant was not attended to by the Respondents r esulting in approaching the court being Civil Rule No. 2160 of 1996 wherein he s ought a relief to treat his service as Science Graduate teacher with effect from 25.3.1992 with all consequential benefits. The court disposed of the writ petit ion on 09.09.1998 directing the Director of Secondary Education, Assam to adjudi cate the matter in order to redress his grievances. The Director of Secondary Ed ucation, Assam issued an elaborate order on 27.07.1999 counting his seniority wi th effect from the date of initial appointment i.e. 25.03.1992 but refused to gi ve the salary and allowances since he did not work for the aforesaid period and hence his claim for entitlement of pay and allowances from the date of initial a ppointment was turned down which culminated in filing the WP(C) No. 6018/2000. T he writ petition being dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 28.6.2006, the same is under challenge before the appellate court. 6. Opening the argument Mr A.S. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant would urge that admittedly the appellant was appointed as Sci ence Graduate teacher on 25.03.1992 on being selected by the concerned authoriti es and accordingly joined in the school but he was not allowed to join for no fa ult of his own and therefore he is entitled to get his salary and allowances fro m the date of initial appointment to the date of issuing subsequent order of app ointment i.e. 25.03.1992 to 01.05.1995. 7. The counsel would further urge that since the benefit of seniority from the date of initial appointment has been given effect to, payment of salary and allowances for the aforesaid period cannot be denied on the ground of no work n o pay as he was, in fact, willing to join the post but was not allowed to join, thereby, violating fair play in action. 8. On the other hand, supporting the action of the State respondents, Mr. V .M. Thomas, learned Standing counsel, Education Department, appearing for the re spondents, would urge that the appellant having accepted the fresh appointment o rder dated 29.04.1995 and accordingly joined in the post, the principle of no w ork no pay would be applicable in the instant case and therefore no interferenc e is called for in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The State counsel would further urge that the question of arrear salary had been agitated in Civil Rule No.962/1993, which did not find favour of the Co urt and it has attained its finality and thus would be barred by constructive re s judicata and therefore urged that writ appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. Considered the submissions made by the parties. Admittedly the appellant was initially appointed on 25.03.1992 to act as Science Graduate teacher but th e Headmaster of the school did not allow him to join in the post, followed by a fresh appointment order dated 29.04.1995 in pursuance to the order passed in Civ il Rule No.962/1993 and accordingly he joined in the post on 02.05.1995, but his claim for payment with retrospective effect was denied culminating in filing an other Civil Rule No. 2160/1996 wherein the Court did not consider appropriate to find favour with the relief he prayed for relating to arrear salary and only th e question of seniority was referred to the Education department which, however, was allowed counting his seniority from the date of initial appointment with ef fect from 25.03.1992. 11. Therefore the Court holds that the question of arrear salary as agitated has attained its finality and does not require to be interfered with in the fac ts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly the writ appeal is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own respective costs.