ORDER : I.A. No.11447 of 2018 Heard. This Interlocutory Application is for condonation of delay of 480 days in filing the appeal. 2. We have gone through the application for condonation of delay and find that there was sufficient cause for which the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time. 3. Having regard to the averments made in the interlocutory application, we hereby condone the delay of 480 days in filing the appeal. 4. I.A. No. 11447 of 2018 stands disposed of. L.P.A. No.754 of 2018 5. The respondents-appellants have preferred this appeal assailing the decision dated 27.07.2017 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5019 of 2012 by virtue of which the writ petition was allowed and the respondents-appellants were directed to release the salary of the respondent for the period commencing from January, 2012 to June, 2012. In addition thereto, the learned Single Judge has also directed for payment of subsistence allowance for the period of suspension within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 6. Brief facts, which would be necessary for consideration of this lis, stand enumerated as under :- The writ petitioner-respondent joined services of Bharat Coking Coal Limited in the year 1980 on the post of E.P. Electrician, South Tisra Colliery of Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad. On 31.05.2011, police arrested him in connection with Chas P.S. Case No. 170 of 2008, however, the writ petitioner was put to trial and was eventually acquitted by the Session Judge, Bokaro vide his judgment dated 08.12.2011 and thereafter, he was released from the judicial custody. According to the writ petitioner, after his release, Memo of Charges dated 29.09.2011/01.10.2011 for his absence from duty was served upon him by which he was required to submit explanation in writing. It has to be kept in mind that the charge-sheet was dated 29.09.2011 and the writ petitioner was directed to submit his explanation within 72 hours of the receipt of the charge-sheet or, as a consequence, it was to be presumed that he had accepted the charges framed without any further reference to him. This is further admitted fact, as learned counsel for the appellants has accepted before us, that the charge-sheet was never served upon him during the period he remained in jail custody in connection with the aforesaid criminal case. This is further admitted fact, as learned counsel for the appellants has accepted before us, that the charge-sheet was never served upon him during the period he remained in jail custody in connection with the aforesaid criminal case. It was served upon him on 12.12.2011 only after he was released from judicial custody, which would be apparent from the joining letter of the writ petitioner, a copy of which has been kept for ready reference as Annexure-3. The writ petitioner gave joining vide Annexure-3 but thereafter, for about six months, no information was given to him either with respect to initiation of any disciplinary proceeding by appointing any enquiry officer etc. or that having been dropped or his joining having been accepted or refused. It was eventually vide letter dated 13.06.2012 (Annexure-4) that the Project Officer, N.T.-S.T. Project informed the writ petitioner that he was issued charge-sheet on 01.10.2011 for his long absence with effect from 01.06.2011 and he was in jail custody since 31.05.2011 in connection with the criminal case but it appears that it has wrongly been stated in the letter that he was convicted by the Sessions Court as the writ petitioner was actually acquitted of the charges as would be evident from Annexure-1 which is the decision of the Sessions Judge, Bokaro. It has further been disclosed in the letter that his case was forwarded to competent authority, who, after examining the full details and documents, had allowed him to resume duty subject to medical fitness vide letter dated 06.04.2012. However, it is also stated that he will not be entitled to any wages or any other benefit for the period of absence. The writ petitioner moved this Court by filing the writ petition with a prayer for release of his salary with effect from January, 2012 to June, 2012, i.e., for the period he was waiting for his joining in anticipation of approval of the competent authority. His said prayer has been allowed by the writ court. 7. In the aforesaid background of the factual matrix, we have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent. 8. His said prayer has been allowed by the writ court. 7. In the aforesaid background of the factual matrix, we have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued before us that the systematic delay which has taken place in processing his letter of joining, a copy of which has been kept at Annexure-3, cannot be construed as if the writ petitioner had joined on the post on that day and was already working. Further facts are admitted that in view of the criminal case he was in jail custody and subsequently was acquitted of the criminal charges as stated above. However, what is startling in this matter is that a charge-sheet was issued on 29.09.2011 or 01.10.2011 but learned counsel admits that it was never served upon the writ petitioner till he was released from the jail custody, i.e., on 12.12.2011. Therefore, till that day, for all practical purposes, there was no departmental proceeding going on. Even after serving the charge-sheet on 12.12.2011, it doesn’t appear that he was proceeded with any disciplinary or departmental proceeding. This is also admitted that the writ petitioner gave his joining vide Annexure-3. This has also been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the delay was systematic one and was not deliberate. 9. Learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that since the writ petitioner was not allowed to resume his duty as he must have been allowed to do so immediately even if he was to be proceeded in a departmental proceeding, the said delay cannot be attributed to him rather the delay was attributable upon the appellants for whatsoever be the reason. Thus, in the eyes of law, non-payment of salary without any such decision having been taken in accordance with law, was not tenable and would not be in accordance with law and procedure. Once the matter of approval was put before the authority concerned and the writ petitioner was not allowed to work even after giving the joining, he was stopped from doing work for that period pending the decision and as such, he would be entitled for the salary for that period. 10. We have considered this aspect of the matter. We do not see any flaw in such decision of the learned Single Judge. 10. We have considered this aspect of the matter. We do not see any flaw in such decision of the learned Single Judge. The systematic delay which has occurred in consideration of joining of the writ petitioner would definitely be attributable upon the appellants themselves. Once the matter was sent for approval for joining of the writ petitioner, whatever time they took to take a decision and then to constitute a medical board for examining the fitness of the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner cannot be saddled with any liability or responsibility for that. 11. In the result, in our view, since the well settled principle of ‘no work no pay’ would not be applicable in the scenario of the present case, in our considered opinion, the decision of the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted with. However, at the same time, the decision with respect to payment of subsistence allowance for the period when the writ petitioner was in jail custody in connection with a criminal case is concerned, that has been granted by the learned Single Judge without dealing with the issue and without any prayer also. Thus, that part requires to be interfered with. 12. Accordingly, the said part is expunged from the impugned decision. However, at the same time, it is apparent from Annexure-4 that without any departmental proceeding or any show cause having been issued or any decision having been taken for regularizing the period of absence during which the writ petitioner was in jail custody, it has been disclosed in the Annexure-4 that the writ petitioner would not be entitled to any wages or any other benefits for that period. That part also requires reconsideration by the authority concerned. Therefore, the appellants are directed to reconsider it and take a decision following the principles of natural justice and in accordance with law and procedure. This matter cannot be kept pending for all times to come, therefore, let such decision be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 13. This disposes of the appeal.