WP(C) 5973/2005 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T. VAIPHEI Heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.K. G oswami, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is filing this writ petition for directing the State resp ondents to pay him the salaries for the period of 11 months commencing from 23.7 .2002 to 8.7.2003. He was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Vivekananda M.E. Sch ool, Bokajan, Karbi Anglong District Circle on 6.1.81. The appointment was appar ently made on the recommendation of the selection committee, His services were h owever terminated on 11.12.81 without giving him of an opportunity of hearing, w hereupon Civil Rule No. 5464/1997 came to be filed by him. This Court vide judgm ent and order dated 23.7.2002 allowed the writ petition by directing the State r espondents to appoint him to the post of an Assistant Teacher and if no vacant post was available, to terminate the services of the private respondent whose ap pointment had been made subject to the outcome of the case. This Court therein a lso observed that if the service of the private respondent could not be terminat ed for any reason, the State Respondents might create two supernumerary post in any provincialised school within the district of Karbi Anglong to accommodate t he petitioner along with another petitioner who is not a party in this case. Thi s court made it clear that the petitioner would not be entitled to back wages an d that the appointment should be made as expeditiously as possible and not later than a period of 3 (three) months from the date of the order. Immediately on re ceipt of that order, the petitioner furnished a copy of the order to the respond ent No. 4 for compliance. The order was not complied with immediately by the res pondent No. 4, which prompted the petitioner to file a contempt petition being C OP(c) No. 632/2002 before this court for disobedience of the order of this Court . However, during the pendency of this Contempt petition, the petitioner came to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher but in a different school. It is obvious t hat by this time some 11 (eleven) months have elapsed. The case of the petitione r is that due to the inordinate delay in giving him the appointment, he had been deprived of his right to serve the post of Assistant Teacher and of the consequ ential salaries. He, therefore, prays that the State respondents should be made liable to pay his salaries for 11 months commencing from 23.7.2002 to 8.7.2003. The State respondents denied that they were reluctant to comply with the order o f this Court and asserted that the petitioner was eventually appointed as Assist ant Teacher in Tinijan M.E. School (Pvn.) in compliance with the order of this C ourt. It is also stated therein that though there was some delay in implementing the order of this Court but the delay was not intentional. 3. There is no dispute that there had been a delay of 11 months in complian ce with the direction of this Court by the State respondents. Apparently, the or der of this Court was complied with only after filing of a contempt petition by the petitioner. Thus, it can not be said that the State respondents were not re luctant in complying with the order of this Court. A mere perusal of the affidav it-in-opposition filed by the State respondents will show that no insurmountable difficulties were shown to exist prohibiting them from implementing the order of this Court with promptitude. In other words no explanation, much less, adequa te explanation, has been offered by the State respondents for not appointing the petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher without delay in terms of the direc tions of this Court. Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned Sr. Counsel submits that the dir ection of this Court for appointment of the petitioner to the post of the Assist ant Teacher was with condition that no back wages would be paid to the petitione r and that in the light of the aforesaid observations made by this Court, the qu estion of payment of back wages is not tenable. The learned Senior counsel also opposes the payment of back wages to the petitioner on the principle of no work no pay . In my considered opinion, this submission is not at all acceptable and is noted only to be summarily rejected. It can not be overlooked that the petit ioner was not allowed to work as Assistant Teacher for no fault of his: he was r ather prevented from working as Assistant Teacher because of the delay in implem enting the direction of this Court, for which he could hardly be faulted with. O n the peculiar facts of this case I am of the opinion that the principle of no work no pay cannot be held applicable. Mechanical application of the normal ru le no work no pay is, in a case of this nature, found to be wholly unjust. (Se e Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India and others (2009) 2 SCC 592). The legal posit ion is tersely summed up by the decision of the Apex Court in State of Kerala an d others Vs. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai, (2007) 6 SCC 524, which are as under : Para. 4. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that grant of retrospecti ve benefit on promotional post cannot be given to the incumbent when he has not worked on the said post. Therefore, he is not entitled to any benefit on the pro motional post from 15.6.1972. In support thereof, the learned counsel invited ou r attention to the decisions of this Court in Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of I ndia, Virender Kumar v. Avinash Chandra Chadha, State of Haryana v. O.P. Gupta, A.K. Soumini v. State Bamnk of Travancore and Union of India v. Tarsem Lal. As a gainst this, the learned counsel for the respondent has invited our attention to the decisions given by this Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, State of A.P. v. K.V.L. v. Narasimha Rao, Vasant Rao Roman v. Union of India and State of U.P. v. Vinod Kumar Srivastava. We have considered the decisions cited on be half of both the sides. So far as the situation with regard to monetary benefits with retrospective promotion is concerned, that depends upon case to case. Ther e are various facets which have to be considered. Sometimes in a case of departm ental enquiry or in criminal case it depends on the authorities to grant full ba ck wages or 50 per cent of back wages looking to the nature of delinquency invol ved in the matter or in criminal cases where the incumbent has been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt or full acquittal. Sometimes in the matter when the per son is superseded and he has challenged the same before court or tribunal and he succeeds in that and direction is given for reconsideration of his case from th e date persons junior to him were appointed, in that case the court may grant so metimes full benefits with retrospective effect and sometimes it may not. Partic ularly when the administration has wrongly denied his due then in that case he s hould be given full benefits including monetary benefit subject to there being a ny change in law or some other supervening factors. However, it is very difficul t to set down any hard-and-fast rule. The principle no work no pay cannot be a ccepted as a rule of thumb. There are exceptions where courts have granted monet ary benefits also. 4. On considering the matter from all angles, I am satisfied that the petit ioner has made out a special case for back wages even though he might not have a ctually rendered any service for the period in question. Resultantly this writ p etition succeeds. The State respondents are directed to pay salaries of the peti tioner for 11 (eleven) months commencing from 23.7.2002 to 8.7.2003 amounting to Rs. 59,400/- (Fifty nine thousand four hundred) only within a period of 2 (two ) months from the date of receipt of this judgment and order. Since this is a ca se of 2002-03, no other similarly situated person can treat this decision as a precedent for claiming similar relief. With the above observations and directi ons this writ petition stands disposed of.