JUDGMENT : 1. Heard counsels for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the office order No. 1378 dated 18.09.2010, wherein the petitioner had been denied salary for intervening period with effect from 01.01.2008 to 17.09.2010, during which he was illegally/forcibly kept out of service on account of illegal/forceful retirement with effect from 31.12.2007, treating his imaginary date of birth as 01.01.1948, applying the principle of “No work no pay”, which is absolutely illegal. 3. Brief facts: The petitioner has claimed his date of birth i.e. 10.06.1953 as per Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, wherein his date of birth has been mentioned as 10.06.1953. The petitioner had been appointed in the respondent-Company on the post of Fitter (Class-III) post and accordingly he had joined the service but his date of birth has been mentioned as 22 years (approx.) on the date of employment i.e. on 01.04.1972. This fact has come to the knowledge of petitioner when the service excerpts had been circulated in the year 1987. There was a large scale discrepancies in the date of birth and as such, service excerpts had been circulated among the employees, inviting their objections. 4. As per petitioner, he had objected his date of birth by supplying the Board Examination Certificate, which had been issued in the year 1965 i.e. much prior to his date of appointment. 5. It is further case of the petitioner that in 2002, again the petitioner had raised objection with the respondents-authorities, the respondents-authorities had written a letter for verification of the certificate. 6. In spite of above facts, his date of birth had not been corrected by the authority and retirement notice had been issued for retiring the petitioner with effect from 31.12.2007 treating his imaginary date of birth as 01.01.1948. This retirement notice had been challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.(S) No. 5901 of 2007, which had been disposed of vide order dated 28.05.2009 remanding the matter to the respondents-Company for determination of his date of birth, keeping in view the Board Certificate. 7. The said order of learned Single Judge had been challenged by the respondent-Company by filing L.P.A No. 506 of 2009 which had been dismissed vide order dated 15.07.2010. 8. 7. The said order of learned Single Judge had been challenged by the respondent-Company by filing L.P.A No. 506 of 2009 which had been dismissed vide order dated 15.07.2010. 8. In spite of dismissal of L.P.A. No. 506 of 2009, the order had not been complied and only when the strict order had been passed by this Court in Contempt Civil No. 670 of 2009, then only the order of reinstatement had been passed by correcting his date of birth, which is impugned in the writ petition. 9. The impugned order has further stipulated that the petitioner will not be entitled for any salary for intervening period i.e. 01.01.2008 to 17.09.2010 on the principle of “No work no pay”. 10. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent and there is no dispute so far as factual aspect is concerned. The only issue involved is a legal issue, whether the principal of “No work no pay” is applicable or not, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11. For elucidating his contention, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment reported in the case of Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board Versus C. Muddaiah (2007) 7 SCC 689 Para 33 and 34, which are quoted herein below: 33. The matter can be looked at from another angle also. It is true that while granting a relief in favour of a party, the court must consider the relevant provisions of law and issue appropriate directions keeping in view such provisions. There may, however, be cases where on the facts and in the circumstances, the court may issue necessary directions in the larger interest of justice keeping in view the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. Take a case, where ex facie injustice has been meted out to an employee. In spite of the fact that he is entitled to certain benefits, they had not been given to him. His representations have been illegally and unjustifiably turned down. He finally approaches a court of law. The court is convinced that gross injustice has been done to him and he was wrongfully, unfairly and with oblique motive deprived of those benefits. The court, in the circumstances, directs the authority to extend all benefits which he would have obtained had he not been illegally deprived of them. He finally approaches a court of law. The court is convinced that gross injustice has been done to him and he was wrongfully, unfairly and with oblique motive deprived of those benefits. The court, in the circumstances, directs the authority to extend all benefits which he would have obtained had he not been illegally deprived of them. Is it open to the authorities in such case to urge that as he has not worked (but held to be illegally deprived), he would not be granted the benefits? Upholding of such plea would amount to allowing a party to take undue advantage of his own wrong. It would perpetrate injustice rather than doing justice to the person wronged. 34. We are conscious and mindful that even in absence of statutory provision, normal rule is “no work no pay”. In appropriate cases, however, a court of law may, nay must, take into account all the facts in their entirety and pass an appropriate order in consonance with law. The court, in a given case, may hold that the person was willing to work but was illegally and unlawfully not allowed to do so. The court may in the circumstances, direct the authority to grant him all benefits considering “as if he had worked”. It, therefore, cannot be contended as an absolute proposition of law that no direction of payment of consequential benefits can be granted by a court of law and if such directions are issued by a court, the authority can ignore them even if they had been finally confirmed by the Apex Court of the country (as has been done in the present case). The bald contention of the appellant Board, therefore, has no substance and must be rejected. 12. Counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the judgment reported in the case of Iswarlal Mohanlal Thakkar Versus Paschim Gujrat Vij Company Limited and Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 434 , Para 19 and 22, which are quoted herein below: 19. Therefore, in view of the above judgments we have to hold that the High Court has committed a grave error by setting aside the findings recorded on the points of dispute in the award of the Labour Court. Therefore, in view of the above judgments we have to hold that the High Court has committed a grave error by setting aside the findings recorded on the points of dispute in the award of the Labour Court. A grave miscarriage of justice has been committed against the appellant as the respondent should have accepted the birth certificate as a conclusive proof of age, the same being an entry in the public record as per Section 35 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and the birth certificate mentioned the appellant’s date of birth as 27-6-1940, which is the documentary evidence. Therefore, there was no reason to deny him the benefit of the same, instead the respondent Board prematurely terminated the services of the appellant by taking his date of birth as 27-6-1937 which is contrary to the facts and evidence on record. This date of birth is highly improbable as well as impossible as the appellant’s elder brother was born on 27-1-1937 as per the school leaving certificate, and there cannot be a mere 5 months’ difference between the birth of his elder brother and himself. Therefore, it is apparent that the school leaving certificate cannot be relied upon by the respondent Board and instead, the birth certificate issued by BMC which is the documentary evidence should have been relied upon by the respondent. Further, the date of birth is mentioned as 27-6-1940 in the LIC insurance policy on the basis of which the premium was paid by the respondent to the Life Insurance Corporation on behalf of the appellant. Therefore, it is only just and proper that the respondent should have relied on the birth certificate issued by BMC on the face of all these discrepancies as the same was issued on the order of JMFC. 22. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and restore the award of the Labour Court, since the services of the appellant were prematurely superannuated taking his date of birth as 27-6-1937 instead of 27-6-1940, and therefore, he is entitled to full back wages and other consequential monetary benefits from the date of termination till the date of his correct superannuation considering his date of birth as 27-6-1940. The back wages shall be calculated on the basis of revised pay scale and the same must be paid by way of demand draft to the appellant within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the respondent shall pay interest @ 12% per annum on the amount due, towards back wages and other consequential monetary benefits, from the date of the award of the Labour Court till the date of payment. 13. Counsel for the petitioner has again relied upon the judgment reported in the case of Jasmer Singh Versus State of Haryana and Anr., (2015) 4 SCC 458 Para-22, which is quoted herein below: “22. The relevant paragraph of the decision is extracted hereunder: (Deepali Gundu case, SCC p. 344, para 22) 22. The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been but for the illegal action taken by the employer. The injury suffered by a person, who is dismissed or removed or is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily be measured in terms of money. With the passing of an order which has the effect of severing the employer-employee relationship, the latter’s source of income gets dried up. Not only the employee concerned, but his entire family suffers grave adversities. They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and advancement in life. At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives and other acquaintance to avoid starvation. These sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the action taken by the employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by a finding of the competent judicial/quasi-judicial body or court that the action taken by the employer is ultra vires the relevant statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages. If the employer wants to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. If the employer wants to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. The denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the employee concerned and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments.” 14. Referring the above decisions it has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that “No work no pay” is not an absolute principle to be applied in all circumstances, rather the fact of the each case has to be seen. If the fact of a particular case is capable of bearing the principle of “No work no pay” then only petitioner can be denied the benefit of salary. 15. It has been further submitted that the Law has been settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in above cases that if an employee has been forcefully/wrongly has been denied to work then the salary cannot be denied. 16. Further referring to the judgment reported in (2014) 6 SCC Page 434 (Supra), learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the above case, it has been held that the salary cannot be denied if the employee has wrongly been retired. 17. Hon’ble Court in the above cases, has given full salary on fact that if an employee is wrongly retired on the basis of wrong date of birth and subsequently on correction of date of birth, employee is found entitle for more service, then he is entitled for salary also. 18. Counsel for the respondent-Company has opposed the prayer by relying upon judgement reported in the case of Rajendra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (2013) 3 SCC 73 Para-9, which is quoted hereinbelow:- “9. The doctrine of equality applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found guilty. The persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can establish discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident. Parity among co-delinquents has also to be maintained when punishment is being imposed. The persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can establish discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident. Parity among co-delinquents has also to be maintained when punishment is being imposed. Punishment should not be disproportionate while comparing the involvement of co-delinquents who are parties to the same transaction or incident. The disciplinary authority cannot impose punishment which is disproportionate i.e. lesser punishment for serious offences and stringent punishment for lesser offences.” 19. On the strength of above judgment, it has been submitted that petitioner has not stated and pleaded that he was not gainfully employed and as such he is not entitled for any salary for the intervening period. 20. Heard counsels for the parties. 21. It is admitted case that the petitioner’s date of birth has been wrongly recorded and the dispute has been raised during his service period on getting first opportunity. 22. The dispute has been raised in the year 1987 itself, as for the first time, it has been brought to the notice of the petitioner. 23. Paragraph 6 of the earlier judgment passed by this Court dated 28.05.2009 passed in W.P.(S). No. 5901 of 2007 is relevant which is quoted hereinbelow:- 6. “I have considered the rival submissions and pleadings and the case law on the subject. The admitted fact remains that the Instruction No. 76 is enforceable and binding and that the petitioner did raise his age dispute in 1987 itself and again in 2002 and it was on these background that the respondent themselves wrote a letter to the Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna for verifying the credential of the certificate produced by the petitioner which was issued by the Board itself. The same was also proved to be correct and genuine and the Date of Birth of the petitioner as per the certificate issued by the Board is 1st June, 1953. It is also a fact that the petitioner has been agitating the issue and the certificate proved his case beyond doubt and even in the affidavit filed on behalf of Bihar School Examination Board, Patna this fact has been admitted”. 24. The finding has been recorded by this Court that the officials of the respondents-Company were at fault for not correcting the date of birth, even though, the dispute has been raised. 25. 24. The finding has been recorded by this Court that the officials of the respondents-Company were at fault for not correcting the date of birth, even though, the dispute has been raised. 25. From the above facts, it is evident that it is purely laches and non-performance of duty on the part of officials of respondents-Company, which has resulted in forceful retirement of the petitioner. 26. A person cannot take a shield from the principle of “No work no pay” for their laches and non-performance of duty. Non-performance of duty is a worst form of the corruption. 27. Admittedly, in the present case, the dispute has been raised within time, the verification was there of the certificate produced by the employee and further law is settled that date of birth mention in the certificate issued by statutory board will prevail over other documents. 28. This principle has been incorporated in the rules known as Implementation Instruction No. 76, governing the field. 29. Thus, in the fact of the present case, it is evident that the petitioner has been forcefully retired on the basis of wrong date of birth and this wrong date of birth is nothing but non-performance of duty on the part of the officials of the respondent-Company. 30. In view of above discussion, this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled for entire salary for the intervening period. 31. It is expected that the salary will be released in favour of the petitioner within six weeks from the receipt/production of copy of the order. 32. Further, liberty is reserved with the respondent-Company to make an enquiry, regarding the conduct of officials, if one or other officials are found guilty, the company is at liberty to realise the loss suffered for their laches and non-performance of duty. 33. With the above observation and direction, this present writ petition stands dismissed.