(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) VIDE order contained in Annexure -1 petitioner was made to retire from service on 31.10.2001 on reaching the age of 58 years as per his date of birth recorded in the register. Subsequently the petitioner and some other employees were subjected to a Medical Board and based on the opinion of the Medical Board in terms of letter No. 656 dated 14.5.2005 contained in Annexure -2, petitioner was taken back in service. The order categorically records that the petitioner will be treated to be in continuous service. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite such an order petitioner is being denied the benefit of salary which has accrued to him for the period when he was removed on 31.10.2001 till he rejoined by virtue of Annexure -2. The respondents in the counter affidavit. do not dispute the basic fact but they have taken two stands with regard to the matter: (1) that since the petitioner had not worked from November, 2001 to May, 2005 no salary is to be paid to him and (2) that paucity of fund is an issue because of which regular payment of salary to the employees is not being made.
(3.) THE financial position of most of these Corporations is widely known and payment of salary is an issue which shall be dealt with by them at their own level. But this Court has serious reservation on the stand which has been taken by the respondents that the period when the petitioner was forced to retire at the age of 58 years and the time when he was reinstated based on the opinion of the Medical Board as well as on the basis of enhanced age of retirement cannot be treated as a period without work, because the principle of "no work no pay" will not be applicable in such a situation. If the respondents illegally denied the benefit of enhanced age of. retirement based on the dispute with regard to date of birth of the petitioner which was found to be incorrect by the Medical Board then the petitioner had all the entitlement to continue in service.