"No Work No Pay" principle is inapplicable where an employer prevents a willing employee from working despite a judicial stay.

The respondents issued a notification on 31.07.2009 for the post of Gramin Dak Sewak Mail Distributor (GDS MD).

The applicant, Rohitesh Tripathi, was appointed on 12.11.2009 as he possessed the highest marks (54.6%) among the considered candidates.

Respondent No. 5 (Devendra Yadav) challenged this appointment in O.A. No. 428/2012, claiming his application (with 64.4% marks) was wrongly rejected as late.

On 24.12.2018, the Tribunal directed the respondents to conduct an inquiry; if Devendra's claim was genuine, he was to be appointed, and the applicant (Rohitesh) was to be adjusted against a similar post in the nearby vicinity due to his long service.

Following the inquiry, the respondents found Devendra’s application was timely but delayed by a Sunday.

Consequently, on 21.05.2019, the respondents cancelled the applicant’s appointment and engaged Respondent No. 5, but failed to adjust the applicant as previously directed.

The applicant challenged the termination and sought back wages for the period he was kept out of service despite a stay order granted on 29.05.2019.

1. Whether the impugned order dated 21.05.2019 was sustainable given the respondents' failure to comply with the Tribunal's previous direction to adjust the applicant in a nearby vacancy.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to back wages for the intervening period between termination and reinstatement under the principle of "No Work No Pay".

The court primarily applied the principle of judicial discipline, requiring strict adherence to specific directions issued in previous inter-party judgments (O.A. No. 428/2012).

Regarding back wages, the court relied on the precedent set in Srikantha S.M. v. Bharath Earth Movers Ltd. (2005) 8 SCC 314, which establishes that the "No Work No Pay" rule does not apply when an employee is willing to work but is illegally prevented from doing so by the employer.

The Tribunal observed that while the respondents correctly identified that Respondent No. 5 had a superior claim to the original post, they selectively implemented the order dated 24.12.2018.

The previous order explicitly mandated that the applicant be adjusted in a nearby vicinity because he had served for a considerable period.

By terminating the applicant without providing such adjustment or recording reasons for the same, the respondents violated the Tribunal's directions, rendering the impugned order unsustainable.

Regarding back wages, the Tribunal noted that an interim stay was granted on 29.05.2019, yet the applicant was only reinstated in 2022.

Since the applicant was prevented from discharging his duties solely due to the respondents' non-compliance with the stay order, the fault lay with the employer.

Following Srikantha S.M., the Tribunal reasoned that an employee kept out of service without justification is entitled to full consequential benefits.

It held that the applicant is entitled to arrears of salary and all consequential benefits for the period from his termination until his reinstatement.

As the applicant had already been adjusted/reinstated during the pendency of the litigation, no further direction for posting was required.

The respondents were directed to pay the dues within three months, failing which an interest rate of 6% per annum would apply from the date of the order until the actual date of payment.

The Original Application was allowed with no order as to costs.