ORDER : MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J. Heard Mr. Z. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner, who prays that the petitioner should be paid his arrear salary for the period from April, 2023 to February, 2024, amounting to Rs.2,87,912/-, on the ground that the petitioner’s suspension for the above stated period was unjustified. 2. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner, who is a Headmaster of 884 No. Pathimari Lower Primary School, was suspended from service pending a departmental enquiry vide order dated 08.03.2023. The petitioner was issued a show-cause-notice dated 08.07.2023, pertaining to financial anomalies of school grants, irregular attendance in class, failure to place/produce accounts related records, taxes etc. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause-notice on 24.07.2023, denying the said charges. 3. As the petitioner’s suspension had been allowed to continue in violation of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury Vs. Union of India Through Its Secretary & Anr., reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, the petitioner filed WP(C) No.5098/2023, praying for setting aside the suspension order and to reinstate him into service. In Para 21 of the judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhury(supra), the Supreme Court has held as follows:- “21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension.” 4. This Court disposed of WP(C) No.5098/2023 vide order dated 15.09.2023, by holding that in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra) and considering the provisions of Clause 2.1.8 of the Manual of Departmental Proceedings of the State Government in the Personnel Department dated 18.08.1981, the suspension order of the petitioner dated 08.03.2023 was not sustainable “on or from 08.06.2023.” The suspension order of the petitioner being unsustainable in law w.e.f. 08.06.2023, was set aside and a direction was issued to reinstate the petitioner in service. As the State respondents did not comply with the order dated 15.09.2023 passed in WP(C) No.5098/2023, the petitioner filed Cont. Cas(C) 732/2023. Pursuant to the order dated 15.09.2023 passed in WP(C) No.5098/2023, the petitioner was reinstated into service, vide order dated 05.02.2024. 5. As the State respondents did not comply with the order dated 15.09.2023 passed in WP(C) No.5098/2023, the petitioner filed Cont. Cas(C) 732/2023. Pursuant to the order dated 15.09.2023 passed in WP(C) No.5098/2023, the petitioner was reinstated into service, vide order dated 05.02.2024. 5. In view of the petitioner being reinstated into service vide order dated 05.02.2024, the contempt petition was closed vide order dated 27.05.2024. The petitioner’s counsel submits that as the continued suspension of the petitioner from 08.06.2023 till the date of his reinstatement was unsustainable and unjustified, the petitioner would have to be paid his salary for the said period. He further submits that as the petitioner could only join his post on 07.02.2024, the petitioner would have to be paid his salary till 06.02.2024. 6. Mr. P.K. Bora, learned counsel for the Elementary Education Department submits that though this Court, in it’s order dated 15.09.2023 passed in WP(C) No.5098/2023, has held that the suspension of the petitioner w.e.f. 08.06.2023 was unsustainable/unjustified, the petitioner would be entitled to payment of his salary for the period from 08.06.2023 till 06.02.2024, only if he has not done some other work, as the normal rule of “no work no pay” will have to be applied in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of The Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board Vs. C. Muddaiah, reported in ( 2007) 7 SCC 689. 7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 8. Para 10 of the order dated 15.09.2023 passed in WP(C) No.5098/2023 has clearly stated that the suspension of the petitioner w.e.f. 08.06.2024 was unsustainable and accordingly, the petitioner was directed to be reinstated into service by this Court. The same was not complied with by the State respondents, due to which, the petitioner had to file a contempt petition. It was only vide order dated 05.02.2024 that the petitioner was reinstated back into service and the petitioner joined his post on 07.02.2024. As such, the petitioner’s claim for payment of salary on the ground that he is entitled to arrear salary for the period from 08.06.2023 to 06.02.2024 is justified in terms of Para 10 of the order dated 15.09.2023 passed in WP(C) No.5098/2023. 9. As such, the petitioner’s claim for payment of salary on the ground that he is entitled to arrear salary for the period from 08.06.2023 to 06.02.2024 is justified in terms of Para 10 of the order dated 15.09.2023 passed in WP(C) No.5098/2023. 9. In the case of The Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board (supra), the Supreme Court has held that even though the normal rule is “no work no pay”, a Court of law may pass an appropriate order in consonance with the law by taking into account all the facts in their entirety. The Supreme Court further held that the Court may, in a given case, direct the authorities to grant all benefits to an employee as if he had worked, even though the person may not have worked, due to him not being allowed to do so, even if he wanted to work. In the present case, there is nothing to show that the petitioner had done some other work. In fact, the petitioner had wanted to be reinstated into service and continued doing his work as a Headmaster and it was in that context that WP(C) No.5098/2023 had been filed. The State respondents, by not allowing the petitioner to work and by flouting the orders of this Court compelled the petitioner to file a contempt case against the concerned respondents. It was only due to the contempt case that the petitioner was issued a reinstatement order. 10. FR 54-B(3) provides that when the authority, competent to order reinstatement, is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the delinquent Officer shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-Rule 8, be paid the full pay and allowances which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended. Further, Sub-Rule 4 of FR 54-B provides that in a case falling under Sub-Rule 3, the period of suspension shall be treated as period spent on duty for all purposes. 11. Further, Sub-Rule 4 of FR 54-B provides that in a case falling under Sub-Rule 3, the period of suspension shall be treated as period spent on duty for all purposes. 11. FR 54-B states as follows: “F.R. 54-B. (I) When a Government servant who has been suspended is reinstated or would have been so reinstated but for his retirement on superannuation while under suspension, the authority competent to order reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order— (a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of suspension ending with reinstatement or the date of his retirement on superannuation, as the case may be; and (b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 53, where a Government servant under suspension dies before the disciplinary or the court proceedings instituted against him are concluded, the period between the date of suspension and the date of death shall be treated as duty for all purposes and his family shall be paid the full pay and allowances for that period to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended, subject to adjustment in respect of subsistence allowance already paid. (3) Where the authority competent to order reinstatement is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (8) be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended : Provided that where such authority is of the opinion that the termination of the proceedings instituted against the Government servant had been delayed due to reasons directly attributable to the Government servant, it may, after hearing the representation, if any, submitted by him, direct, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the Government servant shall be paid for the period of such delay only such proportion of such pay and allowances as it may determine. (4) In a case falling under sub-rule (3) the period of suspension shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes. (4) In a case falling under sub-rule (3) the period of suspension shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes. (5) In cases other than those falling under sub-rules (2) and (3) the Government servant shall subject to the provisions of sub-rules (8) and (9) be paid such proportion of the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended, as the competent authority may determine, after giving notice to the Government servant of the quantum proposed and after considering the representation, if any submitted by him in that connection within such period which in no case shall exceed sixty days from the date of which the notice, which has been served as may be specified in the notice. (6) Where suspension is revoked pending finalisation of the disciplinary or the court proceedings, any order passed under sub-rule (1) before the conclusion of the proceedings against the Government servant, shall be reviewed on its own motion after the conclusion of the proceedings by the authority mentioned in sub-rule (2) who shall make an order according to the provisions of sub-rule (3) or (5) as the case may be. (7) In a case falling under sub-rule (5), the period of suspension shall not be treated as a period spent on duty, unless the competent authority specifically directs that it shall be so treated for any specified purpose: Provided that if the Government servant so desires, such authority may order that the period of suspension shall be converted into leave of any kind due and admissible to the Government servant. Note 1- The order of the competent authority under the preceding proviso shall be absolute and no higher sanction shall be necessary for the grant of:- (a) extraordinary leave in excess of three months in the case of temporary Government servant; and (b) leave of any kind in excess of five years in the case of permanent or quasi-permanent Government servant. Note 2- In case falling under sub-rules (5) and (7) of F.R. 54-B, the competent authority may pay such proportion of such pay and allowances as admissible under F.R. 53 read with sub-rule (9) of F.R. 54-B with prior concurrence of Finance Department. (8) The payment of allowances under sub-rule (3) or sub-rule (5) shall be subject to all conditions under which such allowances are admissible. (8) The payment of allowances under sub-rule (3) or sub-rule (5) shall be subject to all conditions under which such allowances are admissible. (9) The proportion of the full pay and allowances determined under the proviso to sub-rule (3) or under sub-rule (5) shall not be less than the subsistence allowance and other allowances admissible under Rule 53.” 12. As can be seen from FR 54-B, the State respondents are to take a decision as to whether the period of suspension of the petitioner ending with his reinstatement was justified and whether or not the said period was to be treated as period spent on duty. In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury(supra), suspension pending a departmental proceeding for 3 months can be ordered. However, the charge- sheet/memo of charge has to be submitted within 3 months and thereafter, a review has to be undertaken. However, in the event charge-sheet/memo of charge is not submitted within 3 months, the delinquent Officer’s, suspension cannot be extended. If the charge-sheet/memo of charge is submitted within 3 months from the date of his suspension and the review of the suspension order is undertaken, the suspension can be extended. In the present case, the issue as to whether the initial suspension period of 3 months, i.e., w.e.f. 08.03.2023 was justified or not would have to be decided by the State respondents, which can be done at the conclusion of the departmental proceedings. Though the initial period of 3 months and the subsequent period of suspension could have been decided by the State respondents at the conclusion of the departmental proceedings, the same having been decided by this Court in Para 10 of the order dated 15.09.2023 passed in WP(C) No.5098/2023, the State respondents are no longer required to consider whether the suspension period beyond 08.06.2023 was justified. The reason being that the order dated 15.09.2023 passed in WP(C) No.5098/2023 has attained finality as on date, as no appeal has been filed against the same. 13. A reading of FR 54-B along with the finding of this Court in Para 10 of the order dated 15.09.2023 passed in WP(C) No.5098/2023 clearly shows that the suspension of the petitioner w.e.f. 08.06.2023 was not sustainable, thereby implying that the same was unjustified. 13. A reading of FR 54-B along with the finding of this Court in Para 10 of the order dated 15.09.2023 passed in WP(C) No.5098/2023 clearly shows that the suspension of the petitioner w.e.f. 08.06.2023 was not sustainable, thereby implying that the same was unjustified. As such, in the present case, the petitioner has clearly made out a case for payment of arrear salary for the period from 08.06.2023 to 06.02.2024, as the period from 08.06.2023 till 06.02.2024 would have to be treated as period spent on duty. The respondents are accordingly directed to pay to the petitioner the arrear salary for the above stated period, minus the subsistence allowance paid, within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 14. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.