ORDER : Suman Shyam, J, 1. Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27/09/2013 passed in WP (C) 28(AP)/2012, whereby the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent by setting aside the orders dated 31/05/2008 and 05/03/2010 inter-alia and issued a direction to the appellants to pay the difference in pay and allowance to the respondent within 30-11-2013 . 3. The factual matrix of the case, briefly stated, is that while the respondent Satyabrata Chakraborty was serving as a Junior Teacher in the Ram Krishna Mission School, Aalo, in the district of West Siang, Arunachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as School) a Notice was circulated on 15/05/2003 by the School Management convening a meeting of the teachers of the school to be held on 17/05/2003. Noticing that the Notice dated 15/05/2003 did not disclose any agenda of the proposed meeting, while putting his signature in the said notice, the respondent/writ petitioner had written “no agenda” .The School Management took exception to such remark/comment made by the respondent treating the same to be an act of “defacing the signature sheet”. Accordingly, by a letter dated 19/05/2003 issued by the Secretary, the respondent was asked to give his views in the matter. Not being satisfied with the explanation given by the respondent, by another letter dated 21/05/2003, the Secretary of the School had informed the respondent that his behaviour and comment amounts to misconduct within the meaning of clause 31(a), 31(o) and 31(p) of the Service Rules and, therefore, the respondent was asked to appear before an Enquiry Officer so as to explain his conduct. Be it mentioned here-in that by the letter that 21/05/2003, the Secretary had declared himself to be the Enquiry Office. Thereafter, on 22/05/2003, the Secretary of the School again informed the respondent that the charge of misconduct levelled against the respondent stood confirmed as he had admitted and affirmed the fact of defacing the signature sheet. As such, he was again asked to explain his conduct before the Enquiry Officer on 23/05/2003. Thereafter, on 22/05/2003, the Secretary of the School again informed the respondent that the charge of misconduct levelled against the respondent stood confirmed as he had admitted and affirmed the fact of defacing the signature sheet. As such, he was again asked to explain his conduct before the Enquiry Officer on 23/05/2003. On 24/5/2003, the Managing Committee of the School held its meeting wherein a decision was taken to initiate suitable disciplinary action against the respondent for the repeated incidents of misconduct indulged in by him. On the same date i.e. 24/05/2003, the Managing Committee had adopted resolution No. 8(1) authorising the Secretary to impose penalty upon the respondent. Being emboldened by the resolution No. 8(1) dated 24/05/2003 adopted by the Managing Committee, the Secretary of the School had issued the order dated 31/05/2003 imposing the penalty of demoting the respondent to the post of Assistant Teacher with effect from 01/06/2003 as per clause 32(d) of the Service Rules. 4. Aggrieved by the order of penalty dated 31/05/2003, the respondent had earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C) 181(AP)/2003, which writ petition was dismissed by the order dated 02/09/2005. The respondent had challenged the order dated 02/09/2005 in Writ Appeal No. 23(AP)/2005 which was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated 05/02/2008, inter-alia, holding that the procedure adopted by the School Management while imposing the penalty upon the respondent was contrary to the Rules and in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. However, taking note of the over all facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent was asked to prefer an appeal before the authorities for reconsideration of the order of penalty. The respondent had thereafter, sought review of the judgment and order dated 05/02/2008, inter-alia, on the ground that the Managing Committee already having imposed the penalty on the basis of the enquiry report and taking note of the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer, there was no justifiable ground for referring the matter back to the Managing Committee as the same would amount of post decisional hearing. This Court, however, did not entertain the review application, numbered and registered as Review Petition No. 24(AP)/2000 but had dispose of the same by the order dated 04/12/2009 providing that the particular Secretary of the Managing Committee, viz, Swami Sumedananda, if he was still functioning as Secretary–cum-Principal of the School, would not participate in the proceeding for reconsideration of the respondent’s case so as to ensure that he cannot influence the decision of Managing Committee while acting as an appellate authority. 5. As directed by this court, the respondent had submitted an appeal dated 02/01/2010 before the appellate authority in terms of Rule 34 of the R.K. Mission, Aalo Service Rules, 1991 on numerous grounds, thereby maintaining that he had not committed any misconduct as alleged by the authorities. Having stated his defence in the matter the respondent had, in the last paragraph of the memo of appeal, offered his apologies for any conduct on his part, which might have hurt his superior authorities. 6. Taking note of the apology tendered in paragraph 14 of the appeal petition, the appellants no.1 had passed the impugned order dated 05/03/2010 promoting the respondent afresh to the post of Junior Teacher of the School but with effect from 01/04/2010 on condition that he will maintain sanctity of the Ram Krishna Mission school, Aalo and that he shall not stake claim for the period that he had remained under demotion. Challenging the order dated 05/03/2010, the respondent as writ petitioner, had once again approached this court by filling WP(C) No. 28(AP)/2011, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge by the judgment and order dated 27/09/2013, which order is under challenge in the present appeal. 7. Mr. Dasgupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment and order dated 27/09/2013 primarily on two grounds. Firstly, that the Ram Krishna Mission School, Aalo being a registered society and a private entity, was not an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. As such, the writ petition itself was not maintainable and, therefore, the impugned judgement and order dated 27/09/2013 was without jurisdiction. Firstly, that the Ram Krishna Mission School, Aalo being a registered society and a private entity, was not an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. As such, the writ petition itself was not maintainable and, therefore, the impugned judgement and order dated 27/09/2013 was without jurisdiction. Secondly, since the impugned order dated 05/03/2010 was passed by the school authorities taking note of the admission made in the form of an apology tendered in the appeal petition, the respondent was estopped from question the validity of the order dated 05/03/2010 by filing the writ petition. 8. Referring to the order dated 05/03/2010 Mr Dasgupta submits that although the past conduct of the respondent was not at all satisfactory, yet, following the direction of this court contained in the order dated 05/02/2008 and also the apology tendered by him, the respondent was promoted afresh to the post of Junior teacher but without benefits connected with the period during which he worked as Assistant Teacher on being demoted. The learned senior counsel submits that since the respondent has already retired from service and has received all his retirement benefits admissible under the Rules, hence, the respondent was not entitled to any further benefits from the school authorities. 9. Mr. Tiwari, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand submits, that this is a clear case where his client has been penalised for no fault on his part. Mr. Tiwari submits that since the allegation brought against the respondent by the letter dated 21/05/2003 was confined to his comment “no agenda” and the enquiry was also with reference to the said conduct of the respondent, there was no question of the authorities going into the past conduct of the respondent while imposing the penalty, more so, when such a recourse was barred under the order dated 05/02/2008 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 23 (AP)/2005. 10. We have considered the submissions made by and on behalf of the rival parties and have also perused the materials available on record. 11. 10. We have considered the submissions made by and on behalf of the rival parties and have also perused the materials available on record. 11. The challenge made to the maintainability of the writ petition was gone into by the learned Single Judge in the first round of litigation, whereby, it was held in the order dated 02/09/2005 that the “Ram Krishna Mission School, Aalo” was an “other authority” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The appellants did not prefer any appeal against the said finding recorded by the learned Single Judge and as such, the same has attained finality. In such view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the argument made by Mr. Dasgupta questioning the maintainability of the writ petition filed in the second round of litigation by and between the parties. 12. Coming to the question of validity of the order dated 05/03/2010, what is to be noted herein is that while reversing the judgment and order dated 02/09/2005 passed in connection with WP(C) No. 181(AP)/2003, the Division Bench of this Court had recorded categorical findings to the effect that the order of penalty dated 31/05/2003 was based on extraneous consideration and was issued in violation of the Rules of natural justice. Having held so, the Division Bench, instead of setting aside the order of penalty dated 31/05/2003, had thought it fit to permit the Managing Committee to consider and dispose of the representation/appeal to be filed by the respondent in accordance with clause 34 of the Service Rules. In the judgment and order dated 05/02/2008, it was however, made clear that the alleged past misconduct on the part of the respondent cannot form the basis for imposing any penalty. Notwithstanding the categorical direction passed by this Court, the appellants appear to have taken note of his past conduct while issuing the order dated 05/03/2010. 13. That apart, from a perusal of the record what is apparent is that the penalty of demotion to the rank of Assistant Teacher was imposed upon the respondent without holding any proper enquiry or establishing the charge of misconduct against him. 13. That apart, from a perusal of the record what is apparent is that the penalty of demotion to the rank of Assistant Teacher was imposed upon the respondent without holding any proper enquiry or establishing the charge of misconduct against him. A perusal of paragraph 14 of the appeal petition dated 02/01/2010 only goes to show that the respondent, while defending his case and denying any misconduct committed by him, has merely tendered an apology as a matter of courtesy showing his respect towards the institution and the superior authority. There is nothing on record to show that the respondent had admitted his guilt. The apology tendered in the memorandum of appeal could, therefore, by no stretch of imagination been taken as an admission of his guilt. 14. From a perusal of the letter dated 21/05/2003, it is apparent that the basic allegation against the respondent was that he had written “no agenda” on the notice circulated on 15/05/2003. It has not been denied by the learned counsel for the appellants that the notice dated 15/05/2003, in fact, did not disclose any agenda for the proposed meeting and the endorsement made by the respondent was based on truth. If that be so, we fail to understand as to what misconduct was committed by the respondent by writing a note in the notice to that effect so as to invite such a harsh punishment. Be that as it may, once the authorities have decided to restore his position to the post of Junior Teacher by accepting the apology, such restoration ought to have related back to the date of imposition of the penalty i.e. 31/03/2003 and the same could not have been given prospective effect from 01/06/2010. That is because the order dated 05/03/2010 had been issued by the appellants on an appeal being preferred by the respondent against the original order of penalty dated 31/05/2003, that too in the teeth of the observations made by the Division Bench of this court in the order dated 05/02/2008 holding the process adopted by the appellants in issuing the order dated 31//05/2003 as illegal. The appeal preferred by the respondent being a proceeding in continuation of the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him, the appellants ought to have confined the consideration of the same to the merits of the appeal by strictly following the direction of the Division Bench, which was admittedly not done in the present case. 15. From an analysis of the materials available on record as well as the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties, it is amply evident that the order dated 05/03/2010 was issued by taking note of the alleged past misconduct of the respondent, thereby acting in utter violation of the judgment and order dated 5-2-2008. By the order dated 5-2-2008, this court had merely granted liberty to the appellants to re-consider the order of penalty dated 31/05/2003 and the said liberty, in the facts of the case, could not have been construed by the appellants as a judicial imprimatur for imposing a fresh penalty upon the respondent on the basis of same enquiry report. Taking note of the aforementioned facts, the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders dated 31/05/2003 and 05/03/2010 and issued a direction to the appellant to pay the difference of salary to the respondent with in a time frame. We find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the Single Judge. 16. Resisting the claim of the respondent for payment of the difference of salary Mr Dasgupta contends that since he had worked as an Assistant Teacher during the period from 01/06/2003 to 31/03/2010, hence, the respondents cannot claim the higher salary of a Junior Teacher for the period of service rendered by him as Assistant Teacher by following the principle of “no work no pay”. 17. It would be evident from the facts alluded above, in this case the respondent has been meted out un-due harassment by the appellants for no fault on his part. There was neither any valid ground for the appellants to demote the respondent to the post of Assistant Teacher nor have they followed proper procedure before imposing such major penalty upon the respondent. Therefore, present is a case where grave injustice had been meted out to the respondent. 18. In the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. There was neither any valid ground for the appellants to demote the respondent to the post of Assistant Teacher nor have they followed proper procedure before imposing such major penalty upon the respondent. Therefore, present is a case where grave injustice had been meted out to the respondent. 18. In the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2015 SC 2904 , the Supreme Court has held that the principle of “no work no pay” would not be attracted where the respondents therein were at fault in not considering the case of the appellants for promotion and not allowing the appellants to work on a post of Naib Subedar carrying higher pay scale. Even in the present case, we find that the respondent/writ petitioner was not allowed to work as a Junior Teacher during the period from 01/06/2003 to 31/03/2010 for no fault on his part. Therefore, applying the ratio of the decision in the case of Ramesh Kumar (Supra) we hold that the respondent/writ petitioner would be entitled to the salary of a Junior Teacher from the period during which he was made to serve as an Assistant Teacher under the appellants by virtue of the order of penalty dated 31/05/2003, meaning thereby that the actual pecuniary benefit in the form of difference in salary as directed by the learned Single Judge would now be paid to the respondent/writ petitioner by the appellants within a period of 3 (three) months from today. 19. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the judgment and order dated 27/09/2013 passed by the learned Single Judge. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal by imposing a cost of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) to be paid by the appellants to the respondent.