JUDGMENT : Petitioner filed this Writ Petition at a time when she was kept out of service from the post of Laboratory Assistant within three months of her appointment. During the pendency of the Writ Petition she got a posting as Office Attendant. As at present her grievance is against denial of salary for the period from 18.03.2016 to 05.03.2017. 2. The petitioner's husband expired on 18.02.2012, while working as Laboratory Assistant in Sree Krishna College, Guruvayoor which is run by the Guruvayoor Devaswom. On 14.06.2012 petitioner submitted an application before the Managing Committee of the Devaswom requesting for compassionate appointment in the College. It is stated that the Guruvayoor Devaswom had by Ext.P1 notification dated 10.02.2012 invited applications for appointment against 5 vacancies of Peon and one vacancy of Laboratory Assistant. Pointing out the availability of vacancies and the steps for filling up the same, petitioner had approached this Court in WP(C) No.24021/2012 seeking directions to the respondents to appoint her. As per Ext.P2 order dated 12.10.2012 this Court directed that one post of Lab Assistant/Peon shall be kept vacant. Thereafter by Ext.P3 judgment dated 23.09.2015 the Writ Petition was disposed of directing that petitioner shall be given appointment against the post kept vacant, in case she satisfied the respondents that she did not have major employed children at the time of the death of her husband and that her husband was the sole bread winner of the family. Thereafter on 14.03.2016 the Administrator of the Guruvayoor Devaswom issued Ext.P4 order appointing the petitioner as Laboratory Assistant under the compassionate employment scheme. It was ordered that petitioner shall pass Attenders' Test conducted by Public Service Commission within the prescribed time limit. Petitioner thereupon joined duty as Laboratory Assistant on 15.03.2016. However from 01.06.2016 onwards the Principal did not permit her to perform duties. She thereupon submitted Exts.P5, P6 and P7 representations before the Principal, the Administrator and the Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department respectively requesting to permit her to work, pointing out that she was kept out of service without even issuing any orders. However from 01.06.2016 onwards the Principal did not permit her to perform duties. She thereupon submitted Exts.P5, P6 and P7 representations before the Principal, the Administrator and the Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department respectively requesting to permit her to work, pointing out that she was kept out of service without even issuing any orders. Thereupon, referring to its earlier letter dated 02.05.2016 and petitioner's representation Government issued Ext.P8 letter dated 10.06.2016 directing the Devaswom to accommodate the petitioner in another suitable post and in case no vacant post of Last Grade Servant was available in the College, to submit formal application through proper channel to downgrade the post of Lab Assistant temporarily. It is submitted that Government had ordered cancellation of petitioner's appointment as Lab Assistant on the ground that she did not have Attenders' test which is required as per the University Statutes. As respondents did not take any positive action even after the direction in Ext.P8 letter, petitioner filed this Writ Petition in December 2016, pointing out that vacancy of Peon was available under the Devaswom to accommodate her. She had also sought for a direction to permit her to continue as Lab Assistant. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Administrator issued Ext.P9 order dated 25.02.2017 canceling the petitioner's appointment as Lab Assistant and appointing her in the vacancy existed in the post of Office Attendant subject to approval by Government. It was ordered that she would be on probation from the date on which she joined duty in the post. Accordingly petitioner joined duty on 06.03.2017. When the matter was reported before this Court, an interim order was passed on 21.03.2017 directing that the 3rd respondent shall issue orders on regularisation of the period during which the petitioner was kept out of employment from 15.03.2016 upto the date of her reappointment. Thereafter the managing committee of the Devaswom decided to regularise her services from 18.03.2016 onwards. Ext.P10 order was issued on 11.4.2017 regularising her appointment as Office Attendant from 18.03.2016 onwards and authorising the Principal to take appropriate steps to get her appointment approved. 3. While so the Managing Committee in its meeting held on 16.01.2018 resolved to treat the period of absence of petitioner, from 18.03.2016 onwards as duty for all purposes except for payment of salary. 3. While so the Managing Committee in its meeting held on 16.01.2018 resolved to treat the period of absence of petitioner, from 18.03.2016 onwards as duty for all purposes except for payment of salary. The Deputy Director of Collegiate Education thereafter issued Ext.P12 order dated 03.11.2018 approving the appointment of petitioner as Office Attendant with effect from 18.03.2016 provisionally. In this order it was stated that the staff pattern of non teaching staff in aided colleges was revised as per G.O. dated 29.02.2016 and the post of Lab Assistant became supernumerary and one post of Office Attendant was created. It was stated that at the time of her appointment as Lab Assistant on 18.3.2016, 5 Office Attendants were working as against the available 5 posts. It was further stated that the petitioner could have been given appointment and given approval only on promotion of any of those OAs. It was stated that Sri.Gokul Krishna-the senior-most OA was granted promotion as Lab Assistant w.e.f. 27.06.2015, as per order dated 29.10.2018. The appointment of the petitioner as Office Attendant was approved provisionally w.e.f. 18.03.2016. It was ordered that before granting salary, the Deputy Director shall ensure that there is no staff in excess. In the statement annexed to Ext.P12 order petitioner's appointment was stated to be made against the vacancy which arose on promotion of Sri.Gokul Krishana on 27.6.2015. The Deputy Director thereafter issued Ext.P13 order directing the Principal to take steps to disburse salary to the petitioner. It was directed that the period from 01.04.2016 to 05.03.2017 when the petitioner was kept out of service shall be treated as LWA/eligible leave and that period from 18.3.2016 to 31.03.2016 and the period upto 6.3.2017 onwards shall be reckoned towards duty and on completion of one year service her probation can be declared. 4. The Writ Petition was thereafter amended incorporating the challenge against the orders Exts.P11, P13 & P14 to the extent salary was denied to the petitioner from 18.03.2016 and seeking consequential directions. The petitioner's grievance is as against Ext.P13 order to the extent it ordered to treat the period during which she was kept out of employment as leave without allowance and denied her salary. The contention of the petitioner is that she could not work only because the respondents did not permit her and she was illegally kept out of service. The petitioner's grievance is as against Ext.P13 order to the extent it ordered to treat the period during which she was kept out of employment as leave without allowance and denied her salary. The contention of the petitioner is that she could not work only because the respondents did not permit her and she was illegally kept out of service. It is her further contention that when her appointment was approved from 18.03.2016 onwards, she is entitled to payment of salary for the entire period. Petitioner claimed that she was entitled to continue as Laboratory Assistant especially when this Court had by interim order directed the Devaswom to keep one post of Lab Asst./Peon vacant and thereafter directed her appointment in the said post. She had also claimed that the post of Peon was lying vacant when she was denied appointment and therefore she cannot be penalized on account of the delay and defaults committed by the respondents. 5. The 3rd respondent has filed a statement/counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit justifying their action. In the additional Counter affidavit filed on 16.11.2019 it is stated that in Ext.R2(a) application submitted by the petitioner on 14.06.2012, her request was for appointment as Lab Assistant. It is also stated that based on Ext.P2 order of this Court the management had reserved one vacancy for the petitioner and she was informed of the same by letter dated 22.03.2013. It is stated that while appointing her as per Ext.P4 order petitioner was directed to qualify the Attender Test conducted by KPSC; but Government had as per Ext.R2(b) letter dated 02.05.2016 directed the Devaswomm to cancel her appointment as Lab Assistant stating that she did not have the qualification; it was directed to issue fresh orders appointing her as Last Grade Servant or in any other vacant post for which she is qualified as per Statutes. The Government also informed that if vacant posts were not available, a formal application shall be submitted to downgrade the vacant post of Lab/Library Asst to that of Last Grade Servant. It is stated that the managing committee of the Devaswom elaborately considered the Government letter in detail and decided that the Administrator would seek the willingness of petitioner to work as Last Grade Servant; to appoint her as Last Grade Servant in one of the vacant posts, in case she was willing. It is stated that the managing committee of the Devaswom elaborately considered the Government letter in detail and decided that the Administrator would seek the willingness of petitioner to work as Last Grade Servant; to appoint her as Last Grade Servant in one of the vacant posts, in case she was willing. It is stated that in the meeting convened by the Managing Committee on 12.07.2016 it was resolved to bring to the notice of this Court that the petitioner was not qualified for the post of Lab Assistant and that based on oral direction of this Court the managing committee met on 23.02.2017 and decided to appoint the petitioner as Office Attendant in the College and issued Ext.P9 order dated 25.02.2017 appointing the petitioner as Office Attendant and thereafter as per Ext.P11 resolution the Managing Director resolved to regularise the period of her absence as duty for all purposes except for salary. It is stated that as per Ext.R2(g) resolution dt.19.2.2016 the Managing Committee had decided to appoint the petitioner as Lab Assistant under compassionate employment scheme on the basis of the application submitted by her in the light of the judgment of this Court, after directing the petitioner to produce the relevant documents. It is stated that there is no fault on the part of the management and that management has taken steps to keep her out of service only on receipt of Ext.R2(b) letter. According to the respondents petitioner is not entitled to salary. According to them petitioner has not made any request to appoint her in a post in which she is qualified. On the other hand the management had already decided to give her a suitable post. 6. The Dy. Director of Collegiate Education had also filed a statement, according to which petitioner is not entitled to pay and allowance for the period when she has not worked. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the judgment of the apex court in State of Kerala v. Bhaskaran Pillai 2007 (3) KLT 711 (SC) and Sivarajan vs. State of Kerala : 1993 (2) KLT 287 argued that when the petitioner was not permitted to work and was illegally kept out of service, she is entitled to payment of salary for the said period. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Guruvayur Devaswom and the learned Government Pleader. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Guruvayur Devaswom and the learned Government Pleader. In the present case the managing committee had found that the petitioner was eligible for compassionate appointment and a decision was taken to give her appointment seeing that her husband was the only bread winner of the family. It is seen from her application that the petitioner had requested for appointment as Lab Assistant. This Court had in Ext.P2 order directed the respondents to keep one vacancy of Lab Assistant/Peon unfilled. It is as against that vacancy that this Court in Ext.P3 judgment directed appointment of the petitioner within two months period stipulated therein. The said judgment was duly implemented giving appointment to the petitioner as Lab Assistant with a direction that the petitioner shall qualify the Attender Test. But Government on receipt of information regarding the appointment directed cancellation of that appointment on the ground that petitioner did not have pass in the Attender Test. At the same time it was also directed that she shall be accommodated in another post. 9. The petitioner's husband died in February 2012. She was given appointment only in 2016 that too after direction from this Court in Ext.P3 judgment when the respondents found that petitioner deserved appointment under the compassionate employment scheme. In such circumstances the abrupt denial of employment to her was illegal especially when the Government had directed to accommodate her in another vacant post. Ext.P1 notification as well as Ext.P9 proceedings of the Administrator would show that vacancies of Peon were available at the time when petitioner was kept out of service and till she was given appointment as Office Attendant. Compassionate appointment is granted to help the family in distress. After having found that the petitioner fulfilled all the conditions for grant of compassionate appointment and after giving her an appointment, respondents ought not have kept her out of service in this manner without issuing an order of termination, that too at a time when there was vacancy of Peon in the very same College. In fairness respondents ought to have accommodated her in any other vacancy subject to further decisions. 10. In fairness respondents ought to have accommodated her in any other vacancy subject to further decisions. 10. In the judgment in Sivarajan vs. State of Kerala : 1993 (2) KLT 287 relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner this Court was considering the claim for arrears of salary for the period during which promotion was illegally denied. It was held that when promotion was denied for no fault on the part of the petitioner and one was prevented from working in that post the pay and allowace cannot be denied. In the judgment in State of Kerala v. Bhaskaran Pillai 2007 (3) KLT 711 (SC) the apex court was considering the question regarding admissibility of monetary benefit when promotion was granted with retrospective effect. It was held therein that the principle of “no work no pay” cannot be accepted. 11. It is true that the general principle is “no work no pay”, but in the present case petitioner who is a widow who was appointed on compassionate grounds was kept out of service. It is relevant to note the following judgments of the apex court where the apex court directed payment. The following observations of the apex court in Commr., Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah: (2007) 7 SCC 689 , in para 34 of the judgment are relevant: 34: xxxx 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 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 IMAGE 12. The court may in the circumstances, direct the authority to grant him 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 IMAGE 12. In Punjab National Bank v. Virender Kumar Goel: (2004) 2 SCC 193 , a 3 Judge Bench of the apex court while considering the effect of withdrawal of application for VRS, before its acceptance by the employer, held that the applicants who were out of their job for no fault of theirs, cannot be denied pay and allowances on the principle of no work no pay. 13. In Gujarat Agricultural University v. All Gujarat Kamdar Karmachari Union: (2009) 15 SCC 335 , the apex court held that the principle of “no work no pay” cannot be applied as a rule of thump. 14. In State of U.P. v. Charan Singh: (2015) 8 SCC 150 the apex court modified the award of the Industrial Tribunal which denied back wages on the principle of “no work no pay”, though it found that the termination of service of respondent Tubewell Operator was illegal. In para 24 of the judgment it was held that the principle of “no work no pay” did not apply in the factual situation of that case as the termination of the services was erroneous in law. It was directed that 50% back wages shall be paid to the respondent from the date of the termination order dated 22.08.1975 till the date of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal i.e. 24-02-1997. The following observations of the apex court in para 22 of the judgment in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Siraj Uddin Khan, (2019) 7 SCC 564 , reiiterating the dictum laid down in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya : ( 2013 10 SCC 324 ) are apt in this context: “22. xxx 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. 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. 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.” 15. In the present case, after giving appointment to petitioner, she was kept out of service, apparently based on the direction in the Government letter. The government letter itself show that her continuance in the College was possible on down gradation of the post in case there was no other vacancy. The direction to cancel the appointment, abrupt denial of employment to petitioner even without an order, the further delay in giving her another appointment, all could have been avoided, if the respondents adjusted her lien against any existing vacancy/post for which she was qualified. The respondents failed to consider the plight of a widow, who had to look after the destitute family consisting of children of tender age, while directing cancellation of her appointment and thereafter keeping her out of employment consequent to that direction. From the minutes of the Managing Committee of the Devaswom it is seen that vacancies of Peons were available when she was kept out of service. From the minutes of the Managing Committee of the Devaswom it is seen that vacancies of Peons were available when she was kept out of service. The fact that the application of petitioner was for appointment as Lab Assistant cannot be a reason to keep the petitioner without employment. In the peculiar circumstances of the case where a widow was not permitted to work for no fault on her part, after about three months of her appointment on compassionate grounds, that too after 4 years of the death of her husband, it is only just and proper that she is paid salary for the period upto her fresh appointment. It is also pertinent to note that her appointment as Lab Assistant was cancelled only as per Ext.P9 order on 25.02.2017 while appointing her as Office Attendant. Therefore she was kept out of service without issuing any order, which is not permissible. She would have got subsistence allowance in case she was placed under suspension. All the respondents are equally responsible for denial of work to petitioner who was always ready to work. 16. Therefore in the peculiar circumstances arising in this case, I am of the view that the period during which petitioner was not permitted to work is to be treated as duty for all purposes, as denial of salary after compulsorily keeping the petitioner out of service for no fault on her part is illegal. Therefore the respondents are directed to issue revised orders regularizing the entire service of the petitioner from 18.6.2016 onwards as duty for all purposes including for payment of salary. Respondents shall pass consequential orders and shall disburse the salary due to the petitioner for the period during which she was kept out of service i.e. from 01.06.2016 to 05.03.2017 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly.