Judgment S.B. Sinha, J. These appeals are directed against a judgment and order dated 8th April, 1988 passed in Civil Order No. 14156(W) of 1985 allowing the writ application filed by the plaintiff respondent and directing the President, Ad hoc Committee to personally pay costs assessed at 100 Gms. 2. The writ petitioner was Head Teacher of Mirpara Ushri Primary School (hereinafter referred to as 'the school'). An order of transfer was passed against him by the Ad hoc Committee, District School Board. On 16.8.1982 he filed a writ application wherein this court passed an interim order to the effect that if the petitioner had not join his transferred post, he would be at liberty to join at the said place without prejudice to his rights and contention but if he had already joined the transferred post he would be allowed to continue to do the same but the same would not be allowed to join the post where he was posted. It was further observed that the writ petitioner might be allowed to go on leave if leave rules so permit. Pursuant to the said order an application for grant of leave was filed by the petitioner. 3. On 31.8.1982 he received a Memo bearing No. 2008 dated 27.8.1982 directing him to explain as to why a disciplinary proceeding shall not be initiated against him, which contained the following charges :- (1) That he left school without any intimation to the authority even to the Secretary of his school. (2) That he did not make over charge of his school to the senior-most Assistant Teacher of his school. (3) That why did he keep his school closed under lock and key cusing dead lock position of the school. 4. He filed a show-cause to the said charge-sheet. By an order dated 2.9.82 he was intimated that he had been on unauthorised leave with effect from 16.8.82 without making over charge of the school to the senior-most teacher. 5. In the said writ application a Rule was issued on 10.9.82 and an interim order was granted restraining the respondents from giving effect and/or further effect to the impugned order of transfer till the disposal of the Rule. The petitioner expressed his intention to join his transferred post with effect from 14.9.82. A request was also made by him to grant leave for the period from 17.8.82 to 16.9.82. The petitioner expressed his intention to join his transferred post with effect from 14.9.82. A request was also made by him to grant leave for the period from 17.8.82 to 16.9.82. However, he was not paid his salary. The petitioner was informed that from the monthly return for the months of August, September, 1982 it appeared that he was absent from 17.8.82 to 13.9.82. The writ petitioner made a representation before the President of the Ad hoc Committee interdict contending that he prepared a monthly return which he had sent to the Secretary: Again a representation was made before the President by the petitioner reiterating the order of the court. He prayed for release of his salary which was denied. A contempt application was filed for alleged wilful disobedience of the said order wherein a Rule was issued. On or about 31.7.85 the writ petitioner received a letter from the President of the Ad hoc Committee whereby and whereunder he was intimated that since the District Inspector of Schools (Primary Education), Malda and the Secretary of the School Board in their report had recommended not to make any payment to the writ petitioner for the period in question to which the petitioner by his letter dated 7.8.85 sought for a copy of the said report which was supplied to him on or about 12.8.85. The petitioner again filed a representation reiterating that the Secretary of the school is not putting his signature on the monthly return and as such he sought for appropriate direction. Allegedly the Sub-Inspector had put remarks on the said representation to the effect that since the petitioner had performed his duties, there cannot be any difficulty by the Secretary to put his signature on the monthly return where after he approached the Secretary again but he refused to put his signature on the monthly return. 6. Again a representation was made by the petitioner to the Sub-Inspector of Schools Manikchak Circle on 19.8.85. The petitioner received a letter on 21.8.85 issued by the Sub-Inspector of Schools Manikchak Circle addressed to the Secretary of the District School Board, Malda wherewith a report regarding the affairs of the school and matter concerning with non-payment of salary of the writ petitioner was forwarded. A request had been made to hold an enquiry for ascertaining the actual position. Several correspondences thereafter passed between the parties. A request had been made to hold an enquiry for ascertaining the actual position. Several correspondences thereafter passed between the parties. The petitioner ultimately filed a writ application questioning two orders dated 29.7.85 and 12.8.85 which are contained in Annexures M and N/1 thereto. The petitioner sent a reply to the said letter where after, the letter dated 12th August, 1985 was issued. The aforementioned letters dated 29th July, 1985 and 12th August, 1985 read thus :- "29-7-85 This is to inform you that District Inspector of Schools (P.E.), Malda and Secretary, Ad hoc Committee, District School Board, Malda by his report dated 24-7-85 being dissatisfied has recommended not to make any payment to you for any period in question. Under the Order of His Lordship I am bound to accept the District Inspector of Schools (P.E.), Malda's recommendation and do accordingly. This is for your information." "12-8-85 Apropos his letter under reference I do hereby intimate him that the District Inspector of Schools (P.E.), Malda was to enquire and recommend as was directed by Hon'ble Court. This order was passed in presence of and within the knowledge of his learned Advocate. I deny that the District Inspector of Schools (P.E.), Malda was deputed by me to collect a report against him as alleged or at all. I personally had nothing to do about his claims under the Hon'ble Court's Order. The language we have used in his letter is looking in courtesy and good taste. I deny that I had or have any intention and/or acted in any way to by pass the direction of His Lordship as falsely alleged or at all. I deny that my letter was vague and cryptic as alleged or at all. However, a copy of the report of the District Inspector of Schools (P.E.), Malda is enclosed herewith in the official course of business, which would speak for itself." 7. The learned trial Judge by reason of the impugned judgment has entered into the dispute of the parties, adjudicated upon the factual matrix and allowed the writ application directing the respondents to pay salary of the petitioner for the disputed period within two weeks and further, as noticed hereinbefore, directed the Secretary of the Ad hoc Committee to pay costs in his personal capacity. 8. Mr. Bhaduri, the ld. 8. Mr. Bhaduri, the ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, inter alia, has drawn our attention to the order dated 11-7-85 passed in C.R. No. 1192(W) of 1983 (Contempt Matter) wherein it was directed ;- "Respondent (President of the School Board) will pay all arrear from September, 1982 without prejudice to the rights and contentions to the parties and monthly return for the entire period required to be submitted by writ petitioner under the Rules and statutory forms to be countersigned either by the Secretary or by two members of the Committee. D.L of Schools (P) who is ex-officio Secretary of the Board will satisfy himself before payment that such requirement of statutory for or Rules whether has been complied with or not. This payment will be subject to the result of the main Rule. If the petitioner ultimately fails and if this Court finds that the amount is not payable then the petitioner would refund the money in the matter to be directed by Court disposing of the matter." 9. Our attention has further been drawn to the impugned order dated 24th July, 1985 wherein the District Inspector of Schools (Primary Education), Malda and the Secretary Ad hoc Committee, District School Board, Malda had clearly held that the petitioner did not work during the said period. 10. According to the learned Counsel, the court could not have gone into the aforementioned disputed questions of fact nor could pass a mandatory order without considering the relevant Rules and Circulars. 11. The ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the President of the Ad hoc Committee had acted in a biased and vindictive manner as well as mala fide which would be apparent from the fact that the writ petitioner was neither allowed to work at his original post nor at his transferred post. As despite the direction made by B.C. Basak, J. in the Contempt Matter, no salary had been paid, the petitioner had to file the aforementioned writ application. It has been submitted that the learned trial Judge had gone into the question very meticulously and arrived at a finding of fact that the writ petitioner was a victim of vengance. As despite the direction made by B.C. Basak, J. in the Contempt Matter, no salary had been paid, the petitioner had to file the aforementioned writ application. It has been submitted that the learned trial Judge had gone into the question very meticulously and arrived at a finding of fact that the writ petitioner was a victim of vengance. Our attention in this connection has been drawn to the following findings of the learned trial Judge:- "(a) I have never come across any such case where President, District School Board has taken so much personal interest in the matter of a transfer of an incumbent of a school and the subsequent development in connection therewith. (b) In my view, there is no specific denial of the facts mentioned in the aforesaid paragraphs of the writ petition and accordingly no reliance can be placed on the averments made therein. On the facts as are appearing from the records, it appears that the President, Ad hoc Committee took it personally and moved in the matter with a sort of vegeance which he should not have done. He was holding a responsible post and he should have behaved in a responsible manner and even if any Assistant Teacher was not acting strictly in accordance with the rules it was his duty to pull him up but not to punish him. The matter should have been viewed in a sympathetic manner instead of fighting on alleged principle. The result was that the petitioner did not get the salaries for the months together. (c) Normally I do not award costs in a writ petition but having regard to the peculiar facts of this case, I direct that the President, Ad hoc Committee shall personally pay costs assessed at 100 Gms. Mr. Dhole Advocate appearing for the petitioner states that his client shall not take the costs. Let this amount be paid by the President, Ad hoc Committee directly to Mahakuma Kustha Anchalik Samity, Calcutta Chapter through Mr. Rathindra Bhadury, Advocate of the respondent and a receipt shall be produced before this Court." 12. It has further been submitted that even now the salary at the old rate is being deposited pursuant to the order of this Court. 13. In this case, as noticed hereinbefore, the learned trial Judge has sought to analyse the materials on records and came to the aforementioned conclusions. 14. It has further been submitted that even now the salary at the old rate is being deposited pursuant to the order of this Court. 13. In this case, as noticed hereinbefore, the learned trial Judge has sought to analyse the materials on records and came to the aforementioned conclusions. 14. However, it appears that the learned trial Judge has not taken note of certain salient features. The disputed question of fact had arisen as to whether he had been working in the school or not. If he had remained on unauthorised leave, he is not to be paid beyond the period, provided he was entitled to leave in terms of the Leave Rules. 15. In the first writ application an interim order was passed. The writ petitioner prayed for extension of time to join at the school by reason of a letter dated 16.8.1982 which is to the following effect:- "With reference to the order No. 1554 dated 17.7.1982, issued under the signature of the President, District School Board, Malda, purporting to transfer me from my present station to the Chamagram P.P. Primary School, under Kaliachak North Circle, P.O. Sujapur, District Malda; I am to approach you for the extension of time for my joining at the new place of posting from 16.6.1982 to 31.8.1982, because of the serious sickness of my mother and some other troubles in my family, without prejudice to my rights and contentions. 2. Movement from one place to another place requires some times for preparation. 3. I require time to find out suitable accommodation for me at Village Chamagram (Sujapur), where I am required to stay." 16. From the averments made in the writ application itself it is evident that the Secretary of the School had accepted his joining report but he was prevented from joining his duties by the other teachers and students. It, therefore, remains admitted that the school as such did not get any service from the writ application. However, as his salary had not been paid, a contempt application has been filed and in the said contempt application an order dated 11.7.1985 was passed which is to the following effect:- "Heard the learned Advocates of the parties. It, therefore, remains admitted that the school as such did not get any service from the writ application. However, as his salary had not been paid, a contempt application has been filed and in the said contempt application an order dated 11.7.1985 was passed which is to the following effect:- "Heard the learned Advocates of the parties. In view of the stand taken by the contemnor respondent this matter is disposed of by making the following order :- 'Respondent (President of the School Board) will pay all arrear from September, 1982 without prejudice to the rights and contentions to the parties and monthly returns for the entire period required to be submitted by writ petitioner under the Rules and statutory forms to be countersigned either by the Secretary or by two members of the Committee. D.I of Schools (P) who is ex-officio Secretary of the Board will satisfy himself before payment that such requirement of statutory for or Rules whether has been complied with or not. This payment will be subject to the result of the main Rule. If the petitioner ultimately fails and if this Court finds that the amount is not payable then the petitioner would refund the money in the manner to be directed by Court disposing of the matter. The contempt proceedings is disposed of accordingly." 17. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said order, the District Inspector of Schools went into the matter and expressed his dissatisfaction as to the fulfilment of the requirements and, thus, did not recommend any payment to be made in favour of the petitioner which is in the following terms :- "I paid a visit to Mirpara Ushri Primary School under Manikchak-I Circle, Malda on 23.7.1985 as directed by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta's Order dated 11th July, 1985 regarding C.R No. 1192(W) of 1983, Md. Mossaraf Hossain vs. Debotosh Dutta, President, Ad hoc Committee, District School Board, Malda at about 8.30 a.m. and observed as follows :- Monthly returns so long submitted by Md. Mossaraf Hossain soon to be fake for the following reasons :- (a) Md. Mossaraf Hossain did not attend Mirpara Ushri Primary School since 16.8.1982. Mossaraf Hossain vs. Debotosh Dutta, President, Ad hoc Committee, District School Board, Malda at about 8.30 a.m. and observed as follows :- Monthly returns so long submitted by Md. Mossaraf Hossain soon to be fake for the following reasons :- (a) Md. Mossaraf Hossain did not attend Mirpara Ushri Primary School since 16.8.1982. It is evident from- i) Teachers' Attendance Register of the school; ii) Statement of (1) Abdul Khaleque and (2) Sushil Kumar Mondal, both are Assistant Teacher of the school who are found at work in the school; iii) Statement of the villagers; iv) Statement of the Members of the School Advisory Committee; v) Statement of the students of the school. Md. Mossaraf Hossain, Head Teacher of the school, did not hand over the School Records, Registers and other belongings of the school to the 2nd Teacher, Abdul Khaleque, as a protest against his transfer ordered by the District Schools Board, Malda. He regularly submits his monthly working report (nomthly return) only obtaining the signature of different persons in different months at different places taking the advantage of ignorances of village people. When it was revealed to the village people they refused to put their signature in any paper of Md. Mossaraf Hossain. It appears from the Teachers' Attendance Register that Manik Sarkar, the then S.I of Schools of the same Circle, allowed a fresh Teachers' Attendance Register on 10.9.1983 when Md. Mossaraf Hossain kept all such important records at his custody at his house. Monthly return in the working statement of the Teachers for the month, on the basis of which S.I of Schools draws the salary bill of the teachers. This monthly return should bear the signature of the Secretary, of two other members of the Advisory Committee of the school, in absence of the Secretary concerned. In my opinion, when the monthly return is fake the question of genuineness of the signature of the members does not arise. Under the circumstances stated above I, as the District Inspector of Schools (P.E), Malda and Secretary, Ad hoc Committee, District School Board, Malda do not recommend Sri Debotosh Dutta, President, Ad hoc Committee, District School Board, Malda, to release the salary of Md. Under the circumstances stated above I, as the District Inspector of Schools (P.E), Malda and Secretary, Ad hoc Committee, District School Board, Malda do not recommend Sri Debotosh Dutta, President, Ad hoc Committee, District School Board, Malda, to release the salary of Md. Mossaraf Hossain, Head Teacher, Mirpara Ushri Primary School who is under order of transfer the disputed period just at present and also no payment for any period as he is not working in the school at all." 18. It is in that situation the intimation dated 29.7.1985 was sent by the President of the Board wherein it was, inter alia, stated that the same had been done in terms of the order of this court. 19. However, in the second writ application which is the subject matter of this appeal, the writ petitioner relied upon the report of the Sub-Inspector. 20. The writ petitioner on his own showing had not been signing his attendance on the Register maintained for all the teachers of the school but had been signing the Attendance Register which he had taken with him while he had left the school. 21. In this situation, the principal question which ought to have been and still is required to be adverted to is as to whether in view of conflict in judicial decisions this court can go into the disputed questions of fact as regard implementation of a particular order. 22. Certain circulars exist as regard payment of salary to a teacher who has forcibly been not allowed to render his services. The learned trial Judge did not advert himself to the said circulars nor had taken into consideration the effect thereof. 23. The attitude on the part of the appellant cannot also be termed as mala fide inasmuch as he relied on the report of the District Inspector of Schools which had been made in the Contempt Application. The District Inspector of Schools has a statutory role to play. He is a person who represents the State in the matter of running the affairs of the institution particularly when he had been so directed by an order of the Court. 24. If the reports of the two authorities (assuming that the second report) could also be accepted, this court would have been well advised not to go into a disputed question of fact and left the parties to avail alternative remedies. 24. If the reports of the two authorities (assuming that the second report) could also be accepted, this court would have been well advised not to go into a disputed question of fact and left the parties to avail alternative remedies. It is a well settled principles of law that although the alternative remedy is no bar to entertain a writ application but a factual matrix, if disputed, requires determination, such a course should be resorted to. 25. In Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors., reported in 1998(8) SCC 1 , the law is stated in the following terms:- "Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not be operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field." 26. Furthermore, it is well settled that the High Court at the first instance would not embark upon the determination of a disputed question and leave the parties to agitate its contentions before the statutory authorities. 27. In State of W.B. & Ors. vs. Nuruddin Mallick & Ors., reported in 1998(8) SCC 1 43, it has been held :- "We have no hesitation to decline such a suggestion. The courts can wither direct the statutory authorities, where it is not exercising its discretion, by mandamus to exercise its discretion, or when exercised, to see whether it has been validly exercised. It would be inappropriate for the Court to substitute itself for the statutory authorities to decide the matter." 28. The courts can wither direct the statutory authorities, where it is not exercising its discretion, by mandamus to exercise its discretion, or when exercised, to see whether it has been validly exercised. It would be inappropriate for the Court to substitute itself for the statutory authorities to decide the matter." 28. The said decisions has been followed by this court in a number of cases. 29. It was, therefore, in our considered opinion, not proper for the learned trial Judge to arrive at the findings quoted hereinbefore. In this connection it may be noticed that admittedly the writ petitioner had not been signing the Attendance Register as would appear from the statements made by the writ petitioner himself in the following manner :- "The said two teachers have opened a Separate Attendance Register for themselves at the instance of the President to record their daily attendance. This Attendance Register has got no legal sanctity. There cannot be two Attendance Register in one and same school. I have been signing and recording my attendance in the official/original Attendance Register singly. Apart from openingly second and separate Attendance Register for themselves the other two teachers refused to join in one monthly return and they were submitting separate myself alone was/is submitting one return." 30. He, in his letter dated 29th September, 1982 stated :- "Because they (i.e. Assistant Teachers) did not sign the authorised Attendance Register from 16.8.1982, I could not treat them present in the school and include their names in the monthly Bill submitted by me. If these two teachers continued to sign the authorised Teachers Attendance Register from 16.8.1982 and thereafter including the period of my absence from 17.8.1982 till 13.9.1982, I would have certainly included there names in the Monthly Bill." 31. It also stands admitted that there can not be two Registers in the one and the same school and is unauthorised, thus, would have no legal sanctity on the basis whereof the Court could act upon. Furthermore, it is evident a case which ought to have been tried on evidence. 32. In view of the fact that if the petitioner had not been working in the school and had merely been signing on the Attendance Register which had been kept at his house, he was not entitled to any pay on the basis of the doctrine of "No Work No Pay". 33. 32. In view of the fact that if the petitioner had not been working in the school and had merely been signing on the Attendance Register which had been kept at his house, he was not entitled to any pay on the basis of the doctrine of "No Work No Pay". 33. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that the ld. Trial Judge was not correct in passing the impugned order which is set aside accordingly. We are further of the opinion that the personal cost imposed upon the President of the Board was wholly unwarranted. The appeals on accordingly allowed but in the facts and circumstances of this case there will be no order as to costs. M.H.S. Ansari, J : I agree. Appeals are allowed.