ORDER 1. Heard the parties. 2. The facts of this case discloses a dissuading feature as to how sometimes the State Government concerned do not pursue the otherwise meritorious case due to laches and negligence or may be for some other extraneous consideration. The facts illustrated hereunder will substantiate our observations. 3. The respondent herein was engaged as a Music Mistress (Instrumental) against a leave vacancy of one Ms Pushpa Rani on 30-8-1989 in the school cadre. She continued till 18-11-1989 when the regular incumbent rejoined duty. It appears she has taken grievances of the relieve order and filed OA No. 783 of 1991 on 15-6-1991 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short "CAT"), Chandigarh Bench, inter alia, praying for a direction that her engagement be treated as ad hoc appointment from 19-9-1990 and also on regular basis w.e.f. 1-1-1991. CAT, Chandigarh Bench by its order dated 31-10-1995 allowed the application and directed the Chandigarh Administration to regularise the services of the respondent w.e.f. 1-1-1991. 4. It is unfortunate that the Union Territory of Chandigarh slumbered over the matter and the order of the Tribunal was not challenged before the higher court or forum. 5. Thereafter the Director, Public Instructions, Chandigarh Administration, by his order dated 29-12-2000, fixed the pay scale of the respondent on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 19-9-1990 and on regular basis w.e.f. 1-1-1991 subject to the condition that she shall not be entitled for any arrear for the period from 9-9-1990 to 28-2-1996 on the principle of "no work no pay". Miscellaneous application were filed by the respondent for execution of the order dated 31-10-1995 passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 783 of 1991. By an order dated 1-1-2001, the Tribunal, on the statement of learned counsel appearing for the respondent that notional benefits of increments have been granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 19-9-1990 and on regular basis w.e.f. 1-1-1991, disposed of the applications observing that the order of the Tribunal has been substantially complied with. . 6. Surprisingly, the respondent filed another OA No. 1030/CH of 2002 before CAT, Chandigarh Bench. In the said OA the respondent prayed the following reliefs: "i) Order dated 29-12-2000, whereby the applicant has been denied the arrears of pay and allowances w.e.f. 19-9-1990 to 24-3-1996 (Annexure A-1) may be quashed and the respondents may be directed to release the same to the applicant. In the said OA the respondent prayed the following reliefs: "i) Order dated 29-12-2000, whereby the applicant has been denied the arrears of pay and allowances w.e.f. 19-9-1990 to 24-3-1996 (Annexure A-1) may be quashed and the respondents may be directed to release the same to the applicant. ii) Directions may be issued to the respondents to issue a seniority list showing the position of the applicant as ad hoc Music Mistress w.e.f. 19-9-1990 and on regular basis w.e.f. 1-1-1991 and grant her the benefit of proficiency step on completion of 8 years' service by taking her entire service into consideration with effect from due date and grant her subsequent increments for the year 2001 and 2002 also after fixing her pay at the proficiency step along with the arrears and the interest @ 18% per annum from the date the amount became due till the actual date of payment thereof." 7. The Tribunal disposed of the aforesaid application by its order dated 13-8-2003 with the following direction: "In the result, we find that OA filed by the applicant is well merited. It is allowed to the extent that the applicant is held entitled to arrears of pay and allowances for the period 19-9-1990 to 27-2-1996. The requisite monetary benefits shall be calculated, released and paid to the applicant within a period of four months from the date a copy of this order is produced before the Director, Public Instructions (Schools), U.T. Chandigarh, Respondent 3 it is clarified that the applicant shall be deemed to be in regular service w.e.f. 1-1-1991 with all consequential benefits including seniority. The condition incorporated in the impugned order (Annexure A-1) dated 29-12-2000 that the applicant is not entitled for any arrears for the period from 19-9-1990 to 24-3-1996 on the principle of 'no work no pay' is hereby quashed. The arrears of salary and allowances for the period 19-9-1990 to 27-2-1996 shall be released in favour of the applicant only after she files an affidavit before the competent authority to the effect that for the aforesaid period she was nowhere remained in gainful employment and earned monetary benefits in any manner." 8. The arrears of salary and allowances for the period 19-9-1990 to 27-2-1996 shall be released in favour of the applicant only after she files an affidavit before the competent authority to the effect that for the aforesaid period she was nowhere remained in gainful employment and earned monetary benefits in any manner." 8. It is astonishing to note that the Tribunal having disposed of the miscellaneous applications on 11-1-2001 observing that notional benefits of increments have been granted to the respondent w.e.f. 19-9-1990 and on regular basis w.e.f. 1-1-1991 the Tribunal has again directed on the subsequent OA that the respondent is entitled to arrears of pay and allowances for the period from 19-9-1990 to 27-2-1996 and directed the a appellant to pay the arrears within four months. The aforesaid order of the Tribunal was assailed before the High Court by filing CWP No. 18440 of 2003. The High Court, by its cryptic and unreasoned impugned order, dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant and affirmed the order of the Tribunal in OA No. 1030/CH of 2002. 9. The direction of the Tribunal which is affirmed by the High Court, in our view, is against the old canons of law directed by this Court. It is settled law that when an incumbent does not discharge any duty, the principle of "no work no pay" would be applicable. This consistent view has been taken by this Court keeping in view the public interest that any government servant who does not discharge his duty should not be allowed to draw pay and allowances at the cost of public exchequer. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 12-7-2005 passed in CWP No. 18440-CAT of 2003 and the order of the Tribunal dated 13-8-2003 recorded in OA No. 1030/CH of 2002. 11. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed. No costs.