1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3282 OF 2007 1] Sau. Rajni Tryambak Bhavsar 2] Sau. Minaxi Pandharinath Nemade 3] Sau. Pushpa Anil Bhole 4] Sau. Rajni Mango Joshi 5] Sau. Surekha Tikaram Londhe 6] Sau. Hemlata Ramesh Patil 7] Sau. Padmaja Ratan Sawre 8] Shri Hiraman Gangadhar Patil 9] Sau. Jirjala Rambhau Dongare 10] Sau.Kalpana Vasantrao Suryawahsni 11] Sau. Amina Biram Tadvi 12] Sau. Minaxi Rajdhar Attarde 13] Sau. Lata Prakash Nikumbh 14] Sau. Kusum Purushottam Chaudhari. 15] Sau. Sunanda Devidas Amrutkar 16] Sau.Pramila Khushal Bhole. 17] Sau. Shaiaja Ghanashyam Ingale 18] Sau. Shashikala Vasant Baviskar 19] Sau. Vandana Baburao Pawar. 20] Sau. Shobhana Shiwaji Desle 21] Sau. Aruna Jagannath Saindane 2 All major, Occupation Service as Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools run by the Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon, R/o. Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. .. petitioners Versus 1] The Municipal Corporation for City of Jalgaon, through its Commissioner. 2] The Administrative Officer, Municipal Corporation of City of Jalgaon Shishan Mandal, 3rd floor, Corporation Building, Jalgaon District Jalgaon. 3] Deputy Director of Education, Nasik Division, Nasik 4] The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nasik. 5] The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Education Department Mantralaya, Mumbai. .. Respondent. --- Mr. G.V. Wani, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.R. Patil, Advocate for the respondent No.5 Mr. Sanket Kulkarni, Advocate holding for Mr. V.T. Chaudhari, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. 3 DATE : 26th August, 2009. COURT'S ORDER :-[PER B.R. GAVAI,J.] 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2] By way of present petition, the petitioners are praying for a writ of Mandamus, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, directing respondent nos. 3,4 and 5, to disburse the salary of the petitioner for the period 15-6-2004 to 20-10-2004 treating them to be in continuous service. 3] The petitioners were working as Primary Teachers in various schools, which were under the Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. However, vide, communication dated 30th October, 1987, the Jalgaon Municipal Area was extended and therefore, the schools wherein the petitioners were working, came under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation Jalgaon and schools were also transferred to the Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon. 4] However, in the year 2004, the list of teachers working in the schools run by the Municipal Corporation Jalgaon was prepared, wherein, 22 teachers i.e. the petitioners came to be declared as surplus. Challenging the said action, the petitioners approached this court, by way of W.P. No. 3993/2004. In the said petition, the order of status-quo was granted vide order dated 9/7/2004. The petition was allowed on 24th September, 2009, holding that the seniority of the petitioners was required to be reckoned from 4 the date of their initial appointment and not from the date on which the schools came to be transferred to the Municipal Corporation. 5] According to the petitioners, they were permitted to resume the duties on 21st October, 2004. 6] Since the petitioners have not been paid the salary for the period between 14/6/2004 and 21st October, 2004, the petitioners have filed the present petition. 7] Shri Patil, learned counsel for the respondent Municipal Corporation vehemently opposes the petition. He submits that 14/6/2004 to 9/7/2004 there was no order protecting the services of the petitioner. He submits that even thereafter on 9/7/2004, only an order of status-quo was passed and since the petitioners have not worked in any of the schools, they are not entitled for the salary on the basis of the principle - “ No work No pay”. 8] Undisputedly, the action of the respondents in treating the petitioners as surplus was challenged in W.P. No. 3993/2004, in which the order of status-quo was granted on 9/7/2004. Thus, from 9/7/2004 till 24th September, 2004, the order of status-quo was operating in the petition filed by the present petitioner. On 24th September, 2004, the petition has been finally allowed. Thereafter, almost after a period of one month, the petitioners have been permitted to resume the duties on 21st October, 2004. 9] We find that since the action of the respondents in treating the petitioners as surplus has been found to be illegal by this court, vide order 5 dated 24th September, 2004, the period from which the petitioners were declared surplus till the date of their actual joining ought to have been treated as their service period and salary for the said period ought to have been paid. . In so far as the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents regarding “No work No Pay” is concerned, we find that the said submission is without substance. It is only on account of the illegal order dated 14/6/2004, that the petitioners were deprived of giving their services. In so far as the period between 15/6/2004 to 9/7/2004 is concerned, the court had passed an order of status-quo. It is the contention of the Corporation that the court had not directed to continue the services of the teachers, by an interim order. It is a settled law that an act of court shall prejudice none. In view of the specific finding recorded by this court that the action of the municipal corporation in issuing the order dated 14/6/2004 thereby treating the petitioners as surplus was illegal, we are not inclined to accept the said submission. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow the petition. 10] Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (C) with no orders as to costs. [N.D. DESHPANDE, J.] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/- 6