ORDER : The petitioner, invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for quashing of part of the order issued by respondent no. 2/Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, vide Memo No. 3383 dated 28-12-2006 (Annexure ‘1’ to the writ petition), whereby the petitioner was disallowed to get the payment of salary from 01-05-2006 till the date of his re-instatement. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the services of the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”) on 25-05-1973 as Junior Lineman. At the time of his joining, he had submitted his physical fitness certificate as well as attested copies of Matriculation certificates, indicating his date-of-birth as 01-05-1947 and he was subsequently promoted to the post of Electrician. However, suddenly in the year 2006, without issuance of any show cause notice, he was forced to retire with effect from 30-04-2006, vide Office Order No. 43 dated 12-04-2006 (Annexure ‘3’ to the writ petition), on the basis of his date-of-birth recorded in the service book as 01-05-1946. Thereafter, the petitioner tried his level best to get the said order cancelled. Subsequently, he made a representation through registered letter dated 29-07-2006 to the Secretary of the Board, claiming therein that his actual date-of-birth as per Matriculation Certificate was 01-05-1947, but to the reasons best known to the office by making overwriting last digit of the year i.e. „7? was made as „6?. Subsequently, the Board got the Matriculate Certificate of the petitioner examined by the Bihar School Examination Board. The Bihar School Examination Board, vide Annexure ‘4’ to the writ petition, confirmed that date-of-birth of the petitioner was correct, as 01-05-1947. However, after lapse of about six months, the respondent no. 2/Joint Secretary of the Board finally cancelled the earlier retirement order of the petitioner, which was given effect from 30-04-2006, vide Annexure ‘1’ to the writ petition. However, while allowing the petitioner to join, a condition was imposed that petitioner shall not be entitled to get the salary from the date of his earlier retirement i.e. 30-04-2006 till the date of his re-joining. 3. Sri R.K.Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier, the petitioner was forced to retire by the inaction on the part of the Board. 3. Sri R.K.Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier, the petitioner was forced to retire by the inaction on the part of the Board. He submits that at the time of issuance of letter for his forced retirement, the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain regarding his actual date-of-birth, whereas, in the service book, some over-writing was done and date-of-birth of the petitioner, as 01-05-1947, was made as 01-05-1946. It has been argued that the petitioner was illegally restrained from functioning in the Board and as such, on the own fault of the Board, the petitioner may not be allowed to suffer. It has been argued that subsequently, the respondent no. 2/Joint Secretary of the Board had realized his mistake, after being satisfied from the communication of Bihar School Examination Board that correct date-of-birth of petitioner was 01-05-1947, cancelled the earlier order of forced retirement of petitioner. In any event, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to full salary for the period of is forced retirement till the date of his re-joining i.e. for the period between 30-04-2006 to 31-12-2006 when the petitioner joined after the earlier retirement order was cancelled by the Board. He submits that since the petitioner was forced to retire, during the claimed period, the principle of „No Work No Pay? shall not be applicable in the present case. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a single bench order of this Court, reported in 1999 (2) PLJR 23 (Radhakrishna Paswan –Vs.- The State of Bihar & Ors.). He has specifically referred to paragraph – 6 of the order, which is as follows:- “6. I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Firstly from Annexures 2 and 3 of the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner continued working inspite of his formal retirement during pendency of the representation before the respondent no. 2. But even assuming that he did not work, he is entitled for salary for that period as he was prevented from discharging his duty illegally. In other words, the date of birth of the petitioner was 10.2.1940 as held by the respondent no. 2 and, therefore, he should have retired on 28.2.1998 but he was wrongly retired on 31.3.1989 (sic). The respondents cannot take advantage of their own wrong. In other words, the date of birth of the petitioner was 10.2.1940 as held by the respondent no. 2 and, therefore, he should have retired on 28.2.1998 but he was wrongly retired on 31.3.1989 (sic). The respondents cannot take advantage of their own wrong. Nothing has been said in the counter affidavit for non-payment of the retrial benefits of the petitioner and, therefore, he is entitled for all the retrial benefits treating him to have retired on 28.2.1998.” 4. Sri Vijay Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents/Board has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that since during the period i.e. from 30-04-2006 till the date of re-joining of petitioner, the petitioner had not worked, he has rightly been denied salary for the period in question on the principle of „No Work No Pay?. By way of referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit, he submits that the over-writing in the service book of the petitioner, in relation to his date-of-birth, was got examined and it was established that it was 01-05-1946, which was subsequently made as 01-05-1947. He further submits that at the time of opening of the service book, the date-of-birth of petitioner was recorded as 01-05-1946 and in the service book, the petitioner had duly put his signature. As per the date-of-birth recorded in the service book, the petitioner was made to retire w.e.f. 30-04-2006 i.e. after completion of 60 years of service. He further submits that after receiving the retirement notice, the petitioner produced his Matriculation Certificate, wherein his date-of-birth was recorded as 01-05-1947 and accordingly, the said certificate was sent to the Bihar School Examination Board for its verification and subsequently, the Secretary, 5. Bihar School Examination Board informed that the Matriculation Certificate was examined, which was found correct and also informed that the petitioner?s date-of-birth, as per certificate, is 01-05-1947. Thereafter, step was taken to cancel the earlier retirement order and the petitioner was allowed to rejoin. Since the petitioner from the date of his earlier retirement and till his re-joining, had not worked, he was disallowed salary for the said period, which is in accordance with law. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. Fact remains that the petitioner was forced to retire w.e.f. 30-04-2006, whereas, according to Matriculation Certificate, date-of-birth of petitioner was 01-05-1947. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. Fact remains that the petitioner was forced to retire w.e.f. 30-04-2006, whereas, according to Matriculation Certificate, date-of-birth of petitioner was 01-05-1947. The petitioner had categorically stated that at the time of forced retirement, he was not given adequate show cause notice or any opportunity to clarify about his date-of-birth. Moreover, after the petitioner represented the Matriculation Certificate, was got examined by the Bihar School Examination Board and realizing the mistake committed by the Board, earlier retirement order was cancelled and the petitioner was allowed to join, treating his date-of-birth as „01-05-1947? instead of „01-05-1946?. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that whatever reasons may be, the petitioner was not at fault and he was forced to retire prior to his actual date of retirement. Subsequently, the mistake was realized by the Board, ofcourse after some enquiry, and it was found that actual date-of-birth of the petitioner was 01-05-1947 and as such, earlier retirement order was cancelled, vide Annexure ‘1’ to the writ petition and he was allowed to join. In such situation, the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner was forced not to discharge his duty in between 30-04-2006 till December, 2006, since fault was on the part of the Board itself, the principle of „No Work No Pay? would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, rather the present case is squarely covered by the Radhakrishna’s case (supra). 7. Accordingly, part of the order contained in Annexure ‘1’ to the writ petition, relating to disallowing salary to the petitioner for the period in question, is hereby set aside and the writ petition stands allowed, with a direction to the respondents/Board to pay the salary of the petitioner for the period during which he was earlier forced to retire to the date on which the petitioner joined after cancellation of his earlier order of retirement within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the event of non-payment of aforesaid amount within three months, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be entitled to get entire amount with interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of cancellation of his earlier order of retirement. 8. In the event of non-payment of aforesaid amount within three months, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be entitled to get entire amount with interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of cancellation of his earlier order of retirement. 8. With above observation & direction, the writ petition stands allowed.