JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J. 1. The appellants in WA Nos. 269 and 270 of 2004, who are the respondents in WA Nos. 355 and 356 of 2004, tiled two separate writ petitions, being WP (C) Nos. 6654 and 7202 of 2002 challenging the action on the part of the National Institute of Technology, Silchar (in short, NIT) in not allowing them to continue in their service till the age of 62 years i.e. 31.12.04 and 30.09.2004 respectively, contending inter alia that the Board of Governors of the Regional Engineering College, Silchar (in short, REC) though vide Resolution dated 19.02.99, which was approved by the State Government on 28.09.92, resolved to extend the age of superannuation of the teachers working in such Institutes from 60 to 62 years, the said benefit has not been extended to the writ petitioners, on the ground that such approval of the State Government was accorded after the said institution was converted to NIT on 28.06.2002. The NIT has contested the said writ petitions by filing affidavits-in-opposition contending inter alia that the REC having been converted to NIT on 28.6.02 and the approval of the State Government approving the Resolution of the Board of Governors dated 19.2.99 being 28.9.02 i.e. after the said College was converted to NIT, such approval of the Resolution of the Board of Governors resolving to increase the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years has absolutely no effect, more so when the Government of India vide communication dated 8th July, 2002 informed the Principal of the NIT at Silchar that every person employed by the REC, Silchar immediately before conversion shall hold office or service in the NIT, Silchar by the same tenure, at the same remuneration and upon the same terms and conditions and with same rights and privileges. The learned Single Judge upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on appreciation of materials available on record, by common judgment and order dated 23.06.2004 partly allowed the aforesaid writ petitions by holding that the writ petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of the Resolution of the Board of Governors adopted on 19.02.99 relating to enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years. However, the learned Single Judge has directed that the writ petitioners will not be entitled to any back wages on the principle of "no work no pay". However, the learned Single Judge has directed that the writ petitioners will not be entitled to any back wages on the principle of "no work no pay". The learned Single Judge has further directed the NIT to allow the writ petitioners to join their respective duties immediately so that they can discharge their duties and function with effect from 1st July, 2004. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioners filed the aforesaid writ appeals challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge relating to refusal to pass any order for payment of back wages by applying the principle of 'no work no pay'. The NIT has also preferred writ appeals, being WA Nos. 355 and 356 of 2004 challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge whereby and where-under it has been held that the writ petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of such extension of age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years. 2. We have heard Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in WA Nos. 269 and 270 of 2004 (respondents in W.A. No. 355 and 356 of 2004) as well as Mr. R.P. Kakoti, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in WA Nos. 355 and 356 of 2004 (respondents in W.A. No. 269 and 270 of 2004) and also Mr. V.M. Thomas, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department, Government of Assam. 3. Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned senior counsel has submitted that since the Board of Governors has adopted the Resolution on 19.02.99 i.e., prior to the REC was converted to NIT on 28.6.02 and such resolution has been approved by the State Government on 28.9.02, such approval will relate back to the date of adoption of the Resolution by the Board of Governors on 19.2.99 and hence, the service conditions, as stood modified by virtue of such approval, of the petitioners cannot be changed by the NIT and the writ petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of such extended age of superannuation i.e. from 60 to 62 years. It has been contended by Mr. Goswami that the communication dated 8.7.02 is therefore to be read as if the age of superannuation of the writ petitioners stood extended from 60 to 62 years effective from 19.2.99. Mr. It has been contended by Mr. Goswami that the communication dated 8.7.02 is therefore to be read as if the age of superannuation of the writ petitioners stood extended from 60 to 62 years effective from 19.2.99. Mr. Goswami, challenging the finding of the learned Single Judge that the writ petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of back wages on the principle of "no work no pay", has submitted that such principle cannot be applied in the instant cases as the writ petitioner were prevented by the authority from attending and performing their respective duties. It has also been submitted that nothing is discernible from the judgment as to the basis of applying the principle of "no work no pay". In support of this contention, Mr. Goswami has placed reliance on the following decisions of the Apex Court: 1. J.N. Srivastava v. Union of India and Anr. (1999) I LLJ 546 SC ; & 2. Srikantha S.M. v. Bharat Earth Movers Ltd., (2005) 8 SCC 314 . 4. Mr. R.P Kakoti, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the NIT has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in law in directing the NIT to take the writ petitioners into service by holding that they are entitled to the benefit of service up-to the age of 62 years as the Resolution of the Board of Governors adopted on 19.2.99 was not approved by the State Government, as is required, till the REC was converted to NIT with effect from 28.6.02. Mr. Kakoti has further submitted that it is evident from the communication dated 8th July, 2002 that the persons including the Director, Principal and all other employees, which includes the writ petitioners, stood taken over by the NIT for the same tenure, at the same remuneration and upon the same terms and conditions and with same rights and privileges prevailing on the date on which the REC was converted to NIT and on such date the Resolution of the Board of Governors of REC dated 19.2.99 not having been approved by the State Government, the subsequent approval accord cannot be treated to have the effect of extension of the service of the writ petitioners to 62 years. Regarding the claim of back wages, Mr. Regarding the claim of back wages, Mr. Kakoti has submitted that admittedly the writ petitioners were not in service with effect from 1.10.02 and 1.1.03 respectively as they already attained the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years on 30.09.02 and 31.12.03 respectively and as such, they are not entitled to the benefit of back wages on the principle of "no work no pay" which has rightly been held by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order. In any case, according to Mr. Kakoti, the State Government has to bear the 50% of the back wages, if directed by this court, up-to 31.03.2003, in view of the communication dated 14.05.2003 issued by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India. Mr. Kakoti, in support of his contention has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in U.P. SRTC Ltd. v. Sarada Prasad Misra Anr. (2006) II LLJ 829 SC. 5. Mr. Thomas, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department relying on the affidavit dated 4th May, 2007 filed on behalf of the Commissioner & Secretary, Higher Education (CTM), Department of Education, Government of Assam pursuant to the direction issued vide order dated 14.2.07, has submitted that no liability can be fastened on the State Government towards any dues payable to the writ petitioners after 28.6.2002 i.e. the date when the REC was converted to NIT. Referring to the notification dated 14th May, 2003 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India it has been submitted that the State Government's liability to the extent of 50% would be up-to 31.3.2002 only and not beyond that as it is evident from the said notification that the Central Government has taken over the full financial control of the NIT at Silchar from the financial year 2003-2004. 6. We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record including the notification dated 14th May, 2003 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Secondary and Higher Education, New Delhi which has been placed on record by Mr. R.R. Kakoti, learned counsel, during the course of hearing. 7. R.R. Kakoti, learned counsel, during the course of hearing. 7. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioners were due to retire on 30.9.02 and 31.12.2002 respectively on attaining the age of 60 years, which was the age of superannuation at the relevant point of time. The Government of India vide notification dated 14.5.2003 had informed all concerned about increasing the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years in case of all the NITs, etc. and also expressing its no objection if the age of superannuation of the teachers is extended from 60 to 62 years in case of REC with the approval of the concerned State Government/Board of Governors. The Board of Governors of REC at Silchar thereafter on 19.2.99, adopted a Resolution for extension of the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years and forwarded the same to the State Government for approval the REC being managed and funded at that point of time by the State Government as well as the Central Government on 50:50 basis. The State Government ultimately approved the Resolution of the Board of Governors dated 19.2.99 on 28.9.02. However, prior to such approval, the REC was converted to NIT with effect from 28.6.02. The contention of the NIT in refusing to extend the benefit of the Resolution of the Board of Governors dated 19.2.99 on the ground that the approval of the State Government was after the date when the REC was converted to NIT, and hence such approval has no meaning at all, cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the Resolution of the Board of Governors dated 19.2.99 was approved by the State Government on 28.9.02, maybe after the said REC was converted to NIT, i.e. 28.6.2002, but it appears from the communication dated 14.5.2003 issued by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of India that the State Government continued to bear the financial liability jointly wife the Govt. of India that the State Government continued to bear the financial liability jointly wife the Govt. of India on 50:50 basis till 31.3.2003 and hence the approval of the State Government of the resolution of the Board of Governors cannot be said to have no meaning and hence the writ petitioners cannot be denied the benefit of such decision of the Board of Governors, when admittedly State Government and Central Government shared the financial liability in respect of this institute in equal share on the date when State Government accepted the approval. 8. The further contention of the NIT that the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of such decision of the Board of Governors regarding the enhancement of the age of superannuation, in view of the communication dated 8.7.02 to the effect that the NIT has taken over the services of all the teaching and non teaching staff of the REC on the same terms and conditions of employment as existed on the date of conversion, also cannot be accepted in view of the Government of India's communication dated 27.08.98 to the effect that the Government of India has expressed its no objection if the age of superannuation of the teachers of the REC is extended from 60 to 62 years and also for the reasons discussed above. 9. That being the position, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the writ petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of the Resolution of the Board of Governors regarding the enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years and hence are entitled to all service benefits till 30.9.04 and 31.12.2004 respectively i.e. till completion of 62 years of age. 10. The next question, which requires our Consideration, is whether the learned Single Judge was right in refusing to pass an order for back wages by applying the principle of "no work no pay". Such principle cannot be applied mechanically although it is true that the payment of back wages in all cases cannot be automatic. It depends on the facts of each case. In the instant cases, it is evident that the writ petitioners insisted that they be allowed to work up-to the age of 62 years in view of the Resolution adopted by the Board of Governors on 19.2.99 which was approved by the State Government on 28.9.02. It depends on the facts of each case. In the instant cases, it is evident that the writ petitioners insisted that they be allowed to work up-to the age of 62 years in view of the Resolution adopted by the Board of Governors on 19.2.99 which was approved by the State Government on 28.9.02. But, it is the NIT who refused the petitioners to perform their duties up-to 62 years. We do not find any fault on the part of the writ petitioners in not attending their duties and rather they were not allowed to perform their duties by the Institute. That being the position, the principle of "no work no pay" cannot be made applicable in the present cases. In this connection, reference may be made to the decisions of the Apex Court in J.N. Srivastava v. Union of India and Anr. (supra), Srikantha S.M. v. Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. (supra) and UPSRTC Ltd. (supra). 11. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned Single Judge was not right in observing that the writ petitioners would not be entitled to back wages by applying the principle of "no work no pay". Hence, it is directed that the writ petitioners would be entitled to all service benefits including the back wages up-to 30.9.04 and 31.12.04 respectively i.e. the dates when they attained the age of superannuation i.e. 62 years. The next question, which requires determination, is who will pay such back wages to the writ petitioners. It is evident from the notification dated 14th May, 2003 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources, New Delhi that the question of taking over the control of 14 NITs and 3 RECs including the NIT at Silchar, which were under the joint control of Central and the State Government, was under active consideration of the Central Government for quiet some time and thereafter, on detailed examination of all aspects of the matter, the Central Government has decided to take over the total control of the 14 NITs and 3 RECs including financial control with immediate effect and further stipulating that plan and non-plan expenditure of the above NITs and RECs would be borne entirely by the Central Government from the financial year 2003-2004 with effect from 1.4.03. It is also not in dispute that prior to the conversion of the REC at Silchar to NIT, the said institution was funded by the Central Government and the State Government on 50:50 basis. 12. That being the position, the State Government and the Central Government both have to bear the back wages payable to the writ petitioners from the date when they attained the age of 60 years till 31.3.03 on 50:50 basis. Thereafter, from the period from 1.4.03 till the writ petitioners attained the age of 62 years, i.e. up-to 30.9.04 and 31.12.04, respectively, it would be the sole responsibility of the Central Government to bear the back wages to the writ petitioners. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the WA Nos. 269 and 270 of 2004 are allowed and the WA Nos. 355 and 356 of 2004 are dismissed. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.