JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. The petitioners have challenged the order contained in Memo No. 583 dated 29.03.2023, whereby the District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar has directed the petitioners to refund the amount of salary which has been paid to them for the period they were not in service on the ground that certificates of the petitioners have not been verified. The corrigendum contained in Memo No. 596 dated 31.03.2023 to the office order dated 29.03.2023 is also under challenge, by which District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar has modified the office order to the extent that the basis of salary payment order issued vide office order no. 416 dated 03.03.2023 in light of letter No. 595 dated 13.08.2021, mentioned in Directorate letter No. 2564 dated 7.12.2022, is not covered by the judgment passed on 10.12.2019 in L.P.A. No. 793 of 2018. 3. Briefly stated, the petitioners were appointed on the post of Assistant Teachers in different subjects in the district of Deoghar, pursuant to Advertisement No. 04 of 2015. It is further case of the petitioners that though their appointments were cancelled, but after the order and direction passed by this Court in several writ petitions preferred by the petitioners or similarly situated persons, they were reappointed in service and the order of cancellation of appointment was quashed and set aside. It may also be stated that the said orders passed by Writ Court has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in different letters patent appeals. Thereafter, office order dated 1.6.2022 was issued by which the petitioners were reappointed after examining and verifying all the certificates and testimonials of the petitioners. By letter no. 1144 dated 14.06.2022, the District Superintendent of Education sought opinion from the office of Director, Primary Education regarding payment of non-working period of the petitioners and accordingly, after receiving direction from the office of Director, Primary Education, School Education and Literacy Department, the respondent no. 4 (District Superintendent of Education) vide memo no. 416 dated 3.3.2023 issued direction for payment of arrears of salary for the period when the petitioners were out of service. However, the respondent no. 4 (District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar) has issued office order contained in memo no. 4 (District Superintendent of Education) vide memo no. 416 dated 3.3.2023 issued direction for payment of arrears of salary for the period when the petitioners were out of service. However, the respondent no. 4 (District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar) has issued office order contained in memo no. 583 dated 29.3.2023, by which the petitioners were directed to deposit the amount of salary which has already been paid to them while they were out of service on the ground that verification of their testimonials are still pending. Therefore, the said order dated 29.03.2023 was modified by issuance of corrigendum dated 31.03.2023 to some extent. 4. Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently assails the impugned orders and submits that the reasoning assigned for refunding salary for the period when the petitioners were not working is not tenable. Learned counsel submits that at the time of joining, the petitioners have already submitted their testimonials and the respondent no. 4 has written to the concerned authority to get the certificates verified from the competent authority of all 180 newly appointed Assistant Teachers. Learned counsel further submits that after lapse of seven years, the respondents are taking flimsy ground of non-verification of the testimonials of the petitioners to justify the impugned orders which is not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further submits that since the petitioners were appointed after fulfilling the eligibility criterion as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement, the petitioners are entitled for salary even for the period when they were out of service. Learned counsel submits that even otherwise, the District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar has overreached the power of the District Establishment Committee, as also the Director, Primary Education, inasmuch as, the petitioners were reappointed by the decision taken in District Establishment Committee and order for payment of arrear of salary was issued by the Director, Primary Education, whereas the District Superintendent of Education exercising his discretionary power has passed the impugned order of recovery. Learned counsel submits that other similarly persons whose appointments were earlier cancelled and thereafter reappointed as per the order and direction of this Court, have been paid salary for the period of non-working days. 5. Mr. Learned counsel submits that other similarly persons whose appointments were earlier cancelled and thereafter reappointed as per the order and direction of this Court, have been paid salary for the period of non-working days. 5. Mr. K.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposing the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners argues that since the petitioners have not worked for the non-working period, they were not entitled for salary. Learned counsel submits that earlier the appointments of the petitioners were found not proper and as such, their appointments were cancelled. Though as per the order and direction passed by this Court, they were taken back and the salaries have been paid also. Learned counsel further submits that while it came to knowledge of the authority that the petitioners were not entitled for salary while they were out of service, order of recovery has been passed, which is proper and legal. Learned counsel submits that since their appointments itself were not proper, they were not allowed for back wages, even though they were reappointed by the order of the Court. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioners needs consideration. Firstly, the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents that the appointments of the petitioners were not proper is not acceptable to this Court. Nothing has been brought on record that what was the minimum educational qualification to be fulfilled by the candidates including the petitioners to be appointed as Teacher in Primary schools, The petitioners having the minimum eligibility qualification as per terms and conditions of the advertisement have been ordered to be reappointed as per the order of this Court and therefore, there is no quarrel that the petitioners lacked the minimum eligibility qualification. As such, this argument of the respondents is turned down. 7. It further appears that as per the order and direction of this Court, the District Establishment Committee, headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar took decision to reappoint the petitioners and later on, the District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar individually took a decision for recovery of the salary, which has been already paid to the petitioners while they were not out of service. The reasoning assigned for recovery of salary for not verifying the testimonials of the petitioners is not tenable. The reasoning assigned for recovery of salary for not verifying the testimonials of the petitioners is not tenable. Admittedly, the petitioners have already submitted their testimonials at the time of joining and thereafter, the District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar also written a letter to the concerned Officers to get the testimonials of 180 candidates verified at the level of the competent offices. The employer is duty bound to get the certificates of the candidates verified as early as possible and for any delay in verifying the same, the candidates/ employees cannot be made to suffer. 8. Even otherwise, the District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar is not competent enough to pass order of recovery of the salary already paid to the petitioners, when they were reappointed on the decision taken by the District Establishment Committee and the order for payment of arrear of salary has been issued by the District, Primary Education. The only recourse available for the District Superintendent of Education was to refer the matter before the District Establishment Committee or before the Director, Primary Education, but instead of referring to the same, the District Superintendent of Education has acted arbitrarily and the same is not sustainable in law. 9. Further argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that since the petitioners have not worked for that period, they are not entitled for salary is also not acceptable to this Court on the ground that the principle of ‘no work no salary’ cannot be adopted as a Rule of Thumb. The petitioners were deprived from working, rather, stopped from working at the hands of the respondents. Since their appointments were found genuine, strictly as per the rules and advertisement, they were ordered for reappointment. When the petitioners have been reappointed and when they were compelled not to work due to the fault of the respondents, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are entitled for salary for the said period while they were kept out of service. 10. At this juncture, this Court refers the judgment of the Division Bench decided in L.P.A. No. 793 of 2018, which is also reflected in the corrigendum dated 31.03.2023, wherein exactly the same and similar matter fell for consideration. 10. At this juncture, this Court refers the judgment of the Division Bench decided in L.P.A. No. 793 of 2018, which is also reflected in the corrigendum dated 31.03.2023, wherein exactly the same and similar matter fell for consideration. The Division Bench of this Court has category held that since the order of termination has been held to be illegal, there is no reason for denying the salary since the writ petitioners have been deprived from discharging from duties forcefully and wrongfully. Perhaps, the District Superintendent of Education has not gone through the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court properly while issuing such office orders. The operative part of the order passed by the Division Bench is quoted herein below:- “18. This Court is of the considered view that the contention raised by the either of the parties does not bind the court rather a court has to pass the order in accordance and settled proposition of law. The learned Single Judge, although has recorded in the impugned order about the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners about 25% of back wages but has directed to make payment of full salary holding the petitioners entitled for the same which cannot be said to be an unjustified direction because such direction has been given keeping in mind the position of law that “no work no pay” will not always be applicable as also since the order of termination has been held to be illegal even by a Division Bench of this Court. Thus, when the order of reinstatement has been passed, there is no reason to deny the salary since the writ petitioners have been deprived from discharging their duties forcefully and wrongfully. 19. On the basis of the elaborate discussions made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the impugned decision holding the petitioners entitled for salary cannot be faulted with.” 11. In the result, the impugned order contained in Memo No. 583 dated 29.03.2023 and corrigendum contained in memo no. 596 dated 31.3.2023 are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to release the salary / amount, if already recovered forthwith, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. 12. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.