IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1892 of 2011 1.Jitendra Kumar Sah, son of Wakil Sah, resident of village Premlata, P.S.Siwan (Muffasil), District Siwan 2.Dharmraj Sah Gond, son of Shiv Narayan Sah Gond, resident of village Nauwadih, P.S.Raghunathpur, District Siwan---------petitioners Versus 1.The State Of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2.The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3.The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran Division, Saran 4.The District Superintendent of Education, Siwan 5.The Block Education Extension Officer, Ander Block, District Siwan 6.The Block Education Extension Officer, Barhara Block, District Siwan----------------------------------------------------------------respondents ----------- For the petitioners :Mr.Rajendra Prasad Singh,Sr.Advocate Mr.Alok Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :Mr.Pawan Kumar, AC to G.A.5 ---- 2. 12.8.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners have approached this Court for payment of arrears of salary from 30.11.2005 to 28.10.2008. The case of the petitioners falls within a narrow compass. The petitioners were appointed as Primary Teacher in Government school by letter dated 31.12.1999 and joined on 1.1.2000 after a selection process conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission. The petitioners continued to work on the said posts and received their salaries until 29.11.2005, when their services were 2 terminated on the ground that they belonging to Gond caste did not belong to Scheduled Tribe under which category they had been appointed. Subsequently the petitioners approached this Court and they were directed to file representations before the District Superintendent of Education. On a consideration of their representations the District Superintendent of Education, Siwan by his order dated 27.10.2008 came to the conclusion that the petitioners belonged to Schedule Tribe in view of the various Government Notifications. The petitioners thereafter joined their respective posts on 29.10.2008. However, salary for the period from 30.11.2005 to 28.10.2008 was not paid to the petitioner, which has compelled them to again knock the doors of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had been removed from service for no fault of their own and they have been treated to be working on the said posts throughout and, thus, they cannot be deprived of their salaries for the period during which they were not allowed to work. Learned counsel for the State relies upon the proposition of No Work No Pay for the said period. 3 On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the view that since the petitioners were deprived of working on their posts not only against their own volition but also they were forced to go out of service on the basis of wrong decision of the respondent authorities, hence the principle of No Work No Pay could not have been applied to their cases. It is the authorities who were wrong throughout to deprive the petitioners of the said posts and payment of salaries for the same. In the said circumstances, there can be no occasion to apply the principle of No Work No Pay in the case of the petitioners and this Court is of the clear view that the petitioners are entitled to full salary and allowances for the period during which they have been compelled not to work on the said posts. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioners for the period from 30.11.2005 to 28.10.2008. Let the same be done within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Spal/ (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)