THE STATE OF BIHAR vs. BALIRAM SINGH

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10806 OF  2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7358 of 2018) THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.  ….          APPELLANTS :Versus: BALIRAM SINGH & ORS.   ….      RESPONDENTS  J U D G M E N T A.M. Khanwilkar, J. Leave granted. 1. 2. This   appeal   arises   from   the   final   judgment   and   order th dated 15  January, 2018 in L.P.A. No.2307 of 2016 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna whereby the judgment and order passed by the Single Judge nd in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22208 of 2013 dated 22 August,   2016   allowing   the   writ   petition   preferred   by   the 2 respondents   inter alia   for relief of payment of salary for the st rd period   from   1   October,   2001   till   3   July,   2007   and consequently   directing   the   appellants   to   pay   the   amount towards salary for the said period had been upheld. 3. The respondents filed a writ petition initially praying for a direction against the appellants to make payment of salary to st rd them for the period from 1  October, 2001 till 3  July, 2007, along   with  statutory  interest.   By   way   of   an  amendment,  a further relief was claimed to issue a writ of mandamus to the appellants   to   give   continuity   of   past   services   to   the st respondents taking into account the period from 1   October, rd 2001 till 3  July, 2007 for the purpose of making payment of salary to the respondents for the said period. The respondents asserted   that   they   were   appointed   as   Adult   Education Supervisors   between   1981   and   1987   pursuant   to advertisements published between 1979 and 1983. It is stated that 771 posts of Adult Education Supervisor were abolished in   terms   of   the   decision   of   the   State   Government   after 3 adjusting   the   remaining   367   supervisors   who   continued  to work until the abolition of the posts in the year 1991.  These   termination   orders   were   challenged   by   the 4. association of the respondents, namely, the Bihar State Adult and Non­Formal Education Employees Association, by way of CWJC No.5036 of 1992. That writ petition was disposed of th along  with  connected  cases  vide  judgment  dated  24   May, 1 1996 . Paragraph Nos.36 and 37 of the judgment read thus: “36. There is no doubt that petitioners’ initial appointments were   made   to   a   scheme   which   was   purely   temporary, therefore,   it   may   not   be   possible   for   me   to   ask   the respondent   authorities   to   regularize   their   services.   But   I have already noticed that their appointments were made as per the prescribed norms of the Government after proper advertisement etc. I have also noticed that having regard to their past services rendered continuously for ten to fourteen years, the State authorities had themselves absorbed at least 771   of   such   Supervisors   and   for   rest   steps   were   under contemplation. Petitioners have also been able to establish successfully that the decision of the authorities to cancel such adjustment was not only malafide rather shameful. But now a stand is being taken by the respondents that those 771 posts were also temporary hence a decision was taken to terminate the petitioners. Therefore, in these backgrounds, it would   not   be   proper   to   quash   the   order   of   petitioners’ termination. 37. But it cannot be ignored that having regard to the long services   rendered   by   the   petitioners,   administrative 1   The Bihar State Adult and Non­Formal Education Employees Association and Ors. Vs.  The State of Bihar and Ors . 1996 SCC Online Pat 235;(1996) 2 PLJR 394 4 authorities had suggested steps for their absorption even in other   departments.   Therefore,   having   taken   into consideration entire facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose of the writ petitions with the following direction to the respondent­authorities: (a) to allow the petitioners and interveners   to   continue   against   these   771   posts,   against which   they   were   adjusted   in   terms   of   the   letter   of   the th concerned department, dated 19  December, 1990. But such adjustment is to be made as per their seniority or (b) in case those   posts   have   also   been   abolished,   take   steps   to absorb/adjust the petitioners along with the interveners in a similar manner, the employees of Consolidation Department were adjusted or (c) if for any justified reason condition nos. (a) or (b) are not possible, take a decision similar to the State of   Uttar   Pradesh,   which   I   have   already   indicated   in paragraph   no.18   of   this   order   and   adjust/absorb   them accordingly. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, I could not persuade myself to quash the impugned order. With   the   aforesaid   directions/observations,   these   writ applications are, thus, disposed of. But the parties are left to bear their own costs.” 5. Consequent   to   the   said   decision,   the   appellants appointed   the   respondents   in   the   Non­Formal   Education th Scheme/Adult Education Scheme vide order dated 15  March, 1998. The said order reads thus:  “The Government of Bihar Secondary, Primary and Adult Education Department Office Order th Patna, date: 15  March, 98 No.24/Mu. 5­042/92 P.E. 112/C.W.J.C.­5036/92 1. In the light of order passed on the date of 24.5.96 by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No.­5036/92 and other annexed petitions and in the light of order passed on the date of 26.11.97 in M.J.C. No.­2884/96 and 3172/96, against   the   sanctioned   and   vacant   posts   of   the   Project 5 Officers,   under   Informal   Dist.   Public   Education   Program under Public Education Directorate, to the following service relieved Adult Education Supervisors along with the other allowances payable from time to time by the Government, in pay­scale­1600­50­2300­60­2700,   making   appointment   in temporary way on the post of Project Officer under Informal Education,   order   is   passed   to   make   joining   in   Public Education Directorate, Bihar Patna. 

2. Aforesaid   all   appointed   employees   at   the   time   of joining, shall submit necessarily Medical Certificate issued by Civil Surgeon.  3. This   appointment   shall   be   deemed   fresh appointment, resultantly their earlier services shall not be calculated for their pension,/ promotion/ time bound promotion etc . 4. If by the aforesaid employees, their earlier charges are not handed over, then only after handing over earlier charge, joining shall be made at new posted place. 5. To all aforesaid employees only starting salary of pay­scale   mentioned   in   this   letter   shall   be   payable immediately. 6. The service of all aforesaid employees shall be under policy and principle of Informal Education Program/Adult Education Program.  6 7. The service conditions of aforesaid all appointed employees shall be deemed under circulars issued earlier in the context of retrenchment and adjustment by the Personnel Department and Finance Department.  8. On being any kind of alteration in Sl. No. in amended Provisional   Seniority   List   prepared   by   Public   Education Directorate, Bihar, Patna, alteration may be made in the post of employees mentioned in this letter also.  9. If during review by Public Education Directorate, proof is   found   of   arrear   or   defalcation   against   any   aforesaid employee,   then   action   shall   be   taken   for   its   recovery.   If against   any   employee   serious   charges   are   found   or   their service is found unsatisfactory, then their service may be terminated.  10. The   aforesaid   appointed   employees   shall   submit affidavit in the context of their appointment at the time of joining stating therein that, their appointment is made in formal   way   and   as   per   rule   and   if   in   future   their appointment   is   found   illegal/irregular,   then   their   service shall be terminated and they shall be liable to punishment.  11. The employee who was appointed on the post of Project Officer, under informal education for the period of three years on the basis of contract earlier in category of   Adult   Education   Supervisor   and   whose   service   was extended up to December, 97, his appointment also shall be deemed fresh appointment.   12. Aforesaid   all   appointed   employees   shall   make joining   in   Public   Education   Directorate,   Bihar,   Patna within one month from date of issuance of this letter, otherwise their appointment shall be terminated. Sd./­dated 15­3­98 [Vishnu Kumar]  Director, Public Education, Bihar, Patna Memo no.­412/Patna, Date: 15 March 1998 Copy sent to;­Accountant General, Bihar, Patna/Ranchi for information and necessary action. Sd./­dated 15­3­98 7 [Vishnu Kumar]  Director, Public Education, Bihar, Patna  Memo no.­412/Patna, Date: 15 March 1998 Copy sent to:­ The Treasury Officer, Vikas Bhawan, Patna Secretariat for information and necessary action. Sd./­dated 15­3­98 [Vishnu Kumar]  Director, Public Education, Bihar, Patna Memo no.­412/Patna, Date: 15 March 1998 Copy   sent   to:­   All   Dist.   Magistrates/all   Dy.   Development Commissioner/all   Dist.   Public   Education   Officer/all Assistant Driector, Informal Education for information and necessary action.  Sd./­dated 15­3­98 [Vishnu Kumar]  Director, Public Education, Bihar, Patna Memo no.­412/Patna, Date: 15 March 1998 Copy   sent   to:­   All   concerned employees……………………………………..for   information   and necessary action. Sd./­dated 15­3­98 [Vishnu Kumar]  Director, Public Education, Bihar, Patna Memo no.­412/Patna, Date: 15 March 1998 Copy sent to:­ The Secretary, Secondary, Primary and Adult Education   Department,   Bihar,   Patna   for   information   and necessary action.  Sd./­dated 15­3­98 [Vishnu Kumar]  Director, Public Education, Bihar, Patna Memo no.­412/Patna, Date: 15 March 1998 [True Translated Copy]” (emphasis supplied) 8 6. Be it noted that the appointment of the respondents to the   post   of   Project   Officer   was   a   fresh   appointment.   The respondents   accepted   the   said   terms   and   conditions   of appointment   and   none   of   the   respondents   challenged   the same. The scheme, in respect of which the respondents were st appointed, was abolished w.e.f. 1  April, 2001, as a result of which all of them came to be terminated. The respondents, however, neither challenged the policy decision to abolish the scheme   under   which   the   Informal   Education   Programme Scheme was implemented by the State Government nor their termination   order.   Indeed,   some   of   the   affected   persons challenged their order of termination by way of writ petitions. We shall advert to this aspect a little latter.  7. It is indisputable that the State Government took a policy th decision on 20  May, 2005 to adjust all the 1427 retrenched employees.   The   policy   is   reflected   in   the   resolution,   which reads thus:  “State of Bihar Department of Human Resources Development (Primary and Adult Education) 9 Resolution        Patna Dated:­ May, 2005. Like   other   states   in   State   of   Bihar,   Informal   Education Program   in  the  form   of   Central  sponsored   programe   was managed   in   order   to   arrange   primary   education   to   such children who are aged about 6­14 years and not going to government school for study. Central Government and State Government   were   bearing   the   expenses   incurred   in   this programe   in  specified   ratio.   The   Central   Government   has taken decision to stop Informal Education Programe and to regulate   the   Education   Guarantee   Program/Objective   and Navachari Education Programe with effect from 01.04.2001 for the purpose of this object. Subsequently the following employees for informal Education Program were retrenched with effect from 01.04.2001. 

2. The   matter   of   a   adjustment   of   1427   retrenched employees under the aforesaid explained in formal education programe   was   pending   before   the   government.   State government   has   taken   decision   for   adjustment   of   the retrenched   employees   against   the   available   vacancies   in different departments in the following manners:­ J. The   concerned   retrenched   employee   shall   be adjusted   on   such   post   for   which   he   possesses   the 10 required prescribed educational qualification and no new post shall be created for him. B. They shall be adjusted for the same salary at which they   were   retrenched.   In   case   of   unavailability   of post/vacancy   and   upon   furnishing   their   written consent, retrenched employees shall also be adjusted at minimum salary.   C. The   reservation   roster   shall,   necessarily   be complied   with.   The   retrenched   employees   shall   be adjusted against the roster point of the same class, they belong to.  D. The maximum limit of age shall be exhausted for adjustment.  E. In   the   light   recommendation   of   personnel   and administrative   reforms   department,   as   per   the definition of retrenched employees mentioned in their resolution no.­209 dated 06.07.92, Public Education Director shall prepare, self sufficient panel, in the light of advice of learned counsel, all 1,427 employees have been deemed to be retrenched.  F. The   direct   recruitment   shall   not   be­stopped   in series   of   adjustment   in   different   departments.   The Public Education Director shall initiate proceedings to mark   the   post   for   the   purpose   of   adjustment   in different departments.  G. Consent of Bihar Employees Selection Commission is   not   necessary   in   filing   the   marked   post   through adjustment.  H. According   to   availability   of   vacancies,   the appointments shall be made from such panel time to time through adjustment after obtaining the approval of chief secretary. Chief Secretary must be empowered by the governor or Council of Ministers of State for giving such approval. I. The adjustment of retrenched employees shall be deemed to be a new appointment. They shall 11 not get the benefit of seniority on the basis of their service before being retrenched. But the period of service   prior   to   retrenchment   shall   be   used   for pension purpose.   J. The   retrenched   employees   whose   immediate adjustment   is   not   done   due   to   unavailability   of vacancy,   after   preparing   their   list   they   shall   be adjusted against vacancy post available in next five years.          By the order of Governor of Bihar.  SD/illegible­Vijay Prakash          Secretary       Primary and Adult Education     20/5/2005”   (emphasis supplied) Even   this   policy   makes   it   amply   clear   that   the 8. adjustment   of   retrenched   employees   was   to   be   a   new appointment and the employees would not get the benefit of seniority on the basis of their services before being retrenched. However, the period of service prior to retrenchment would be reckoned for pension purposes only. Even this policy has not been challenged by the respondents.  The   respondents   eventually   came   to   be   appointed 9. th pursuant to the letter dated 16  March, 2007. The said letter reads thus: 12 “Letter no.­13/Est. 15­05/06 270/ The Government of Bihar Human Resource Development Department From,  Dr. Madan Mohan Jha Commissioner­cum­Secretary. To,  Commissioner­cum­Secretary, Food and Supply Department, Bihar, Patna.   Patna, Date: 16 March, 2007 Subject:­About the adjustment on the posts equivalent of Supervisors   of   Adult   Public   Education,   in   the compliance of order passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court  in C.W.J.C.  No.­5036/92 and  M.J.C. No.­2884/96, in course of Resolution No.­582 dated 20.05.05 and 1638 dated 11.10.06 passed by the State Government.  Sir, 1. In the context of aforesaid subjects, as per instruction, it is to say that, a decision is taken by the State Government of   re­adjustment   against   the   vacant   posts   equivalent   to supervisory   category   under   different   departments,   of   the employees   of   concerned   Adult   Education   Supervisor Category,   in   context   of   which   decision   was   taken   of adjustment   in   other   departments   as   consequence   of conclusion of Informal Education Program with effect from date 01.04.01 and whose adjustment was made in year 1998 under Informal Education Program on account of wants of posts, for some time against the post of clerk, the employees of   Adult   Education   Supervisor   Category,   concerned   with Resolution   No.­582   dated   20.05.05   for   the   adjustment against   the   vacancies   available   in   different Departments/Offices,   of   retrenched   employees   of   Informal Education Program. In this context, the copy of Resolution No.­582   dated   20.05.05   and   Resolution   No.­1638   dated 11.10.06 are annexed. Vide Letter No.­646 dated 25.03.05 of the Food and Supply   Department,   on   the   basis   of   said   decision   of   the Government   and   option   received   for   adjustment   from 13 employees   against   the   communicated   rest   vacancies   of Supply Inspector, for the appointment/adjustment in pay­ scale [5000­8000] against vacant posts of Supply Inspector, under   Food   and   Supply   Department,   of   the   following retrenched   employees   of   Adult   Education   Supervisory Category:­

14

15

16 2. In the adjustment, compliance of Reservation roster shall   be   mandatory.   Retrenched   employee   shall   be adjusted/appointed against roster point of same category of reservation to which they belong. 3. Their   adjustment   shall   be   deemed   new appointment and on the basis of their service prior to retrenchment   benefit   of   seniority   shall   not   be permissible   to   them   but   their   service   prior   to retrenchment   shall   be   calculated   for   the   purpose   of pension .  4. All employees were under the control of Dist. Public Education Officer/Public Education directorate. So Joining of all employees should be accepted at their new place only after receiving No Objection Certificate issued by Dist. Public Education   Officer/Public   Education   Directorate.   The employees who have made joining in any other department earlier   as   result   of   adjustment,   such   employees   shall produce   No   Objection   Certificate   issued   from   concerned Office.  5. After the appointment of aforesaid employees, copy of appointment letter send immediately to the under signatory, so   that,   information   should   be   sent   to   the   Hon’ble   High Court.  6. On   finding   any   kind   of   discrepancy,   inform immediately, so that, it may be resolved immediately.  Sincerely Sd./­dated 16/03/07 [Dr. Madan Mohan Jha]     Commissioner & Secretary Memo No.270, Patna Date: 16 March, 2007” (emphasis supplied) 17 This appointment letter reiterated the position that the 10. appointment/adjustment of the respondents was to be a new appointment   and,   on   the   basis   of   their   service   prior   to retrenchment, benefit of seniority would not be permissible to them   but   it   would   be   reckoned   only   for   the   purpose   of pension. The respondents acted upon the said conditions and did not challenge the same. The writ petition, however, came to be filed only in 2013, being CWJC No.22208 of 2013, for the following reliefs:  “i) To   issue   an   appropriate   writ/order/direction   in   the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to make payment of salary to the petitioners of the period 1.10.2001 to 3.7.2007 with statutory interest. ii) To any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.” The   respondents   sought   further   relief   by   way   of   an amendment, which reads thus:  “1.(iii). To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to give continuity   of   past   services   of   the   Petitioners   taking   into account the period 2001­2007, for the purpose of making payment of salary to the Petitioners of the said period.” 18 11. The sole basis to buttress the relief as claimed was that in the case of  Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra Vs. State of Bihar 2 and   Ors.   similar   reliefs   had   been   granted   and   the respondents were similarly placed. The writ petition filed by the respondents was resisted by the appellants by   inter alia placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of 3  According to the State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Arun Kumar . appellants, no relief could be granted to the respondents as they   were   appointed   as   per   the   policy   articulated   in th communication dated 20  May, 2005 and including the terms and conditions of appointment noted in the communication th dated 16  March, 2007. Inasmuch as, the respondents acted upon the terms and conditions of fresh appointment without any demurrer. Further, the case of the respondents was not similar to the factual matrix involved in the case of  Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra  (supra). In any case, no relief can be granted in th 2   Decided on 29  August, 2005 in CWJC No.1712/2002 passed by the High Court of  Judicature at Patna.  3  Decided on March 2, 2016 in Civil Appeal No.2433 of 2016 and connected appeals.  19 the fact situation of the present case by invoking Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India.  12. Even though the learned Single Judge of the High Court noted the argument of the appellants that, in a similar case of (supra), this Court had refused to grant relief of Arun Kumar  back­wages, but nevertheless proceeded to answer the matters in issue by holding that the appellants could not point out the factual   difference   between   the   case   of   Smt.   Ram   Laxmi Mishra   (supra)   and   that   of   the   respondents.   Further,   the decision   in   Smt.   Ram   Laxmi   Mishra   (supra)   had   been affirmed right up to this Court by dismissal of the Special th Leave Petition being SLP (Civil) No.18429 of 2009 on 24  July, 2009.   On   that   basis   alone,   the   writ   petition   came   to   be allowed. Thus, the reliefs claimed in the writ petition were granted to the respondents by directing the appellants to pay st rd salary for the period from 1  October, 2001 till 3  July, 2007.  20 13. The appellants, therefore, carried the matter in appeal by way   of   Letters   Patent   Appeal   No.2307   of   2016   before   the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench also disposed   of   the   appeal  vide   impugned   judgment   and   order th dated 15  January, 2018, which reads thus:  “Heard counsel for the State, the appellants, as well as   the private respondents. Since   the   learned   single   Judge   allowed   the   writ application, gave a direction for payment of salary for the period   01.10.2001   to   03.07.2007   in   conformity   with   a similar   decision   passed   in   the   case   of   Smt.   Ram   Laxmi Mishra, which order in turn even upheld by the Division Bench as well as by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In the interest of maintaining consistency in identical situation, the learned single Judge has committed no error in allowing the writ application and granted direction for payment for the period indicated above.  We do not find any infirmity in the order. The appeal is dismissed.” 14. The   appellants   would   contend   that   the   sole   basis   on which the High Court granted reliefs to the respondents is tenuous. For, the factual matrix involved in the case of  Smt. (supra), is inapplicable to the case of the Ram Laxmi Mishra  respondents   and  moreso,  unlike   in  the  case  of   Smt.  Ram (supra),   the   respondents   not   only   failed   to Laxmi   Mishra   21 challenge   the   termination   order   passed   against   them st consequent to abolition of the scheme w.e.f. 1  April, 2001 but also failed to challenge both, the policy of the State articulated th in communication dated 20   May, 2005 and the terms and th conditions of the letter of appointment dated 16  March, 2007. Having failed to do so, the respondents were not entitled to any relief whatsoever. Besides, the cause of action first arose in 2001, then in May 2005 and again, in March 2007, but the writ petition seeking relief of back­wages for the stated period came to be filed by the respondents, without challenging the termination order or the policy, for the first time in the year 2013. In other words, the writ petition filed by the respondents also suffered from laches. It is then contended that in the case of  Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra  (supra), the High Court directed reinstatement and, as a consequential relief, ordered payment of back­wages, after setting aside the termination order. In the present case, there is no challenge against the termination order or the terms and conditions specified in the appointment th letter dated 16  March, 2007, being fresh appointment of the 22 respondents. If it is not a case of reinstatement, the question of granting back­wages for the stated period would not arise. Moreover, since the respondents had not worked during the relevant period at all, the principle of ‘no work, no pay’ would inevitably come into play.  15. The respondents, on the other hand, would contend that the High Court, while granting relief to the respondents, has placed reliance on the dictum in the judgment rendered in Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra   (supra). That judgment has been upheld by this Court by dismissal of Special Leave Petition th (Civil) No.18429 of 2009 on 24  July, 2009. Further, the High Court while deciding the case of   Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra (supra) had adverted to the decision of the same High Court in 4 the case of   , which decision has also Binod Kumar Verma   been   affirmed   by   this   Court   by   dismissal   of   Special   Leave th Petition   (Civil)   No.11560   of   2005   on   16   December,   2005. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of the same th 4   Decided on 14  February, 2005 in CWJC No.15365 of 2001 passed by the High  Court of Judicature at Patna. 23 5 High Court in  Krishnandan Singh   and also on the decisions 6 rendered in    Amar Nath Prasad Karn , Yogi Kamti & Sunil 7 8 Kumar   and  Asgar Ali . The decision in  Asgar Ali  has been affirmed by this Court by dismissal of Special Leave Petition th (C) CC Nos.10361­10364 of 2014 on 18  July, 2014.  Further, the decision of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in LPA th No.359/2009 dated 10  October, 2009 came to be affirmed by nd dismissal of SLP (C) No.1377 of 2011 on 2  August, 2013. As regards the decision of this Court in  State of Bihar & Ors. (supra) , and connected cases, it is submitted Vs. Arun Kumar      that   the   same   is   distinguishable.   According   to   the respondents, the appointment of Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra  and other petitioners who succeeded before the High Court was on the same terms and conditions consequent to the policy dated th 20  May, 2005. The respondents submitted that no fault could rd 5  Decided on 23  May, 2003 in CWJC No.12469 of 2002 passed by the High Court of  Judicature at Patna.  th 6  Decided on 10  July, 2017 in CWJC No.18490 of 2008 passed by the High Court of  Judicature at Patna. th 7  Decided on 11  July, 2017 in CWJC No.18960 of 2008 and 18993 of 2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna. th 8  Decided on 4  January, 2010 in WPS No.729 of 2004 by the High Court of  Jharkhand. 24 be found with the impugned decision of the High Court for having   followed   the   decision   in   Smt.   Ram   Laxmi   Mishra (supra), which has been upheld by this Court by dismissal of the concerned Special Leave Petition. It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal be dismissed, being devoid   of merits.  16. We have heard Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Navaniti Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents.  17. The   principal   issue   that   arises   for   consideration   is whether   the   reliefs   as   prayed   for   can   be   granted   to   the respondents, who not only failed to challenge the termination st w.e.f. 1   April, 2001 pursuant to the policy decision of the State   Government   at   the   relevant   time   but   also   failed   to challenge the latest policy decision of the State Government th noted   in   communication   dated   20   May,   2005,   regarding adjustment   of   the   terminated   employees   on   terms   and conditions stipulated thereunder and including the terms and th conditions   specified   in   the   appointment   letter   dated   16 25 March, 2007. Neither the single Judge nor the Division Bench of the High Court has dilated on this aspect at all. The learned Single Judge mechanically followed the decision in  Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra  (supra). What has been completely glossed over by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench in the present case is that the writ petition filed in   Smt. Ram Laxmi   Mishra   (supra),  was   to   challenge   the   order   of st termination dated 1  April, 2001, in which the said petitioner succeeded in establishing that her initial appointment was in the   Adult   Education   Scheme   and   not   in   the   Non­Formal Education Scheme. What weighed   with the High Court in that case   was   that   the   closure   of   the   Non­Formal   Education Scheme in which the concerned petitioner was working at the relevant time, would not affect her service condition in the cadre   of   Adult   Education   Scheme.   Notably,   in   Smt.   Ram Laxmi   Mishra   (supra),   the   petitioner   succeeded   in   the challenge to her termination order and it came to be set aside with   consequential   reliefs   of   reinstatement   and   monetary benefits, which included back­wages for the relevant period.  26 In   the   present   case,   however,   the   respondents   have 18. neither challenged the termination order after closure of the st Non­Formal Education Scheme w.e.f. 1   April, 2001 nor the th policy   dated   20   May,   2005   under   which   they   have   been th appointed or the appointment letter dated 16   March, 2007. th Even   the   appointment   letter   dated   16   March,   2007 unambiguously predicates that the appointment was a fresh appointment and the past services would be reckoned only for the   purpose   of   grant   of   pension   and   nothing   more. Indisputably,   the   respondents   acted   upon   such   terms   and conditions of appointment without any demurrer. They chose to file the subject writ petition only in the year 2013,   when the st th cause of action first arose on 1  April, 2001, then on 20  May, th 2005   and   once   again,   on   16   March,   2007.   Unless   the respondents are to be reinstated in their previous post (held st prior to 1  April, 2001), the question of awarding back­wages would not arise at all. The relief of back­wages is and can be linked only to the order of reinstatement. It cannot be awarded 27 in isolation or, for that matter, during the period when the respondents were not in employment at all.  19. A fortiori , we have no hesitation in taking the view that the writ petition filed by the respondents for the stated reliefs is devoid of merits for more than one reason. First, it suffers from laches since it came to be filed only in the year 2013. st Second, there is no challenge to the termination w.e.f. 1  April, th 2001 and including the policy dated 20  May, 2005, or to the th terms and conditions of appointment letter dated 16  March, 2007. No order of reinstatement could be passed in favour of the   respondents  and   sans   such  an  order,   the  respondents cannot be bestowed with back­wages for the  period during which they were not in the employment of the appellants and also because they did not work during that period. Third, the scheme in respect of which the respondents were employed on st temporary basis was closed w.e.f. 1  April, 2001. No order of reinstatement could be made much less of back­wages for the period subsequent thereto and until the engagement of the th respondents on 16  March, 2007 in a new post. If the scheme 28 in   which   they   were   employed   has   been   abolished,   by   no stretch of imagination can the court direct payment of back­ st wages for the period after abolition of the scheme w.e.f. 1 April, 2001. Fourth, the principle of ‘no work, no pay’ would disentitle the respondents from the relief of back­wages. Fifth, the   decision   in   Smt.   Ram   Laxmi   Mishra   (supra),   is distinguishable   on   facts   and,   in  any   case,   a  relief   wrongly granted to the petitioner therein cannot be the basis to grant similar   relief   to   the   respondents   herein,   which   is   not   in conformity with the extant regulations or policy, the dismissal of Special Leave Petition of the State by this Court in that case notwithstanding. Lastly, the principle underlying the decision of this Court in   State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Arun Kumar (supra),   would   apply   proprio   vigore   to   the   case   of   the respondents.  20. Counsel for the respondents was at pains to point out that in all other cases of similarly placed persons, relief of back­wages for the relevant period has been granted by the 29 High Court, which has been upheld right up to this Court by dismissal   of   Special   Leave   Petition(s)   filed   by   the   State Government and for that reason, unequal treatment ought not to be meted out to similarly placed persons. To buttress this submission, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in   Ashwani   Kumar   and   Ors.   Vs.   State   of   Bihar   and 9   in particular, the dictum in paragraph 18 thereof. Others , The said paragraph reads thus:  “18. Now is the time for us to take stock of the situation in the light of our answers to the aforesaid three points. As a logical corollary to these answers the appeals are liable to be dismissed as the decision of the High Court is found to be well sustained. The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants to sustain services of these appellants on humanitarian grounds cannot be countenanced. When 6000 appointees are found to have been illegally loaded on the State Exchequer by Dr Mallick and when there were only 2250 sanctioned posts, in the absence of clear data as to who were the senior most and which were the sanctioned posts available at the relevant time against which they could be   fitted,   it   would   be   impossible   to   undertake   even   a jettisoning operation to offload the removable load of excess employees amounting to 3750 by resorting to any judicial surgery. Once the source of their recruitment is found to be tainted all of them have to go by the board.  Nor can we say that   benefit   can   be   made   available   only   to   1363 appellants   before   us   as  the   other  employees   similarly circumscribed and who might not have approached the High Court or this Court earlier and who may be waiting in the wings would also be entitled to claim similar relief 9  1997 (2) SCC 1 30 against the State which has to give equal treatment to all   of   them   otherwise   it   would   be   held   guilty   of discriminatory   treatment   which   could   not   be countenanced   under   Articles   14   and   16(1)   of   the Constitution of India.  Everything, therefore, must start on a clean slate. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on the doctrine of tempering justice with mercy also cannot be pressed in service on the peculiar facts of these cases as mercy also has to be based on justice. The 10 decision of this Court in the case of  H.C. Puttaswamy  also can be of no assistance to the appellants on the facts of the present cases as in that case the Chief Justice of the High Court   had   full   financial  powers   to   create   any   number   of vacancies   on   the   establishment   of   the   High   Court   as required and to fill them up. There was no ceiling on his such powers. Therefore, the initial entry of the appointees could not be said to be unauthorised or vitiated or tainted. The fault that was found was the manner in which after recruitment they were passed on to the establishments of subordinate courts. That exercise remained vitiated. But as the   original   entries   in   High   Court   service   were   not unauthorised these candidates/employees were permitted to be regularised. Such is not the present case. The initial entry of  the  employees  is  itself  unauthorised  being   not  against sanctioned vacancies nor was Dr Mallick entrusted with the power of creating vacancies or posts for the schemes under the Tuberculosis Eradication Programme. Consequently the termination of the services of all these appellants cannot be found   fault   with.   Nor   any   relief   as   claimed   by   them   of reinstatement with continued service can be made available to them.” (emphasis supplied) 21. For the reasons already recorded, the argument under consideration does not commend to us. As mentioned earlier, the factual position stated in the decisions in which relief has 10   1991 Supp. (2) SCC 421 31 been   given   to   the   petitioners   in   the   concerned   petitions  is distinguishable. More importantly, in those petitions, order of termination   was   the   subject   matter   of   the   challenge   and, having set aside the impugned termination, the court granted consequential relief of reinstatement with back­wages to the concerned petitioner(s). The respondents herein, however, for reasons best known to them, did not challenge the order of st termination which event had occurred w.e.f. 1   April, 2001 consequent   to   abolition   of   the   scheme   in   which   they   were employed. Taking an overall view of the matter, therefore, the respondents are not entitled to the reliefs as claimed, having acted upon the terms and conditions upon which they came to th be engaged vide appointment letter dated 16  March, 2007. 22. Accordingly,   this   appeal   must   succeed.   The   impugned th judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   on   15 January, 2018 in LPA No.2307 of 2016 is quashed and set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondents, being Civil 32 Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22208 of 2013, stands dismissed. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.         .....……………………………...J.           (A.M. Khanwilkar) …..…………………………..….J.      (L. Nageswara Rao)  New Delhi; October 29, 2018.