1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally.

2. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.

3. By the present petition, the Petitioner assails the order dated 12.02.2019 passed by Respondent No.2–Divisional Commissioner at Exhibit-J, to the extent it holds that the Petitioner is not entitled to pay and allowances from 20.11.2014 till the date of joining under Zilla Parishad, Nanded, as well as the order dated 25.07.2019 issued by Respondent No.3–Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded, imposing a condition that no pay and allowances shall be payable for the period from 20.11.2014 till the date of joining in the school run by Zilla Parishad, Nanded. By the present petition, the Petitioner seeks payment of salary for the said period commencing from 20.11.2014.

4. The contention of the Petitioner is that he was transferred from Zilla Parishad, Thane to Zilla Parishad, Nanded on 20.11.2014 and was accordingly relieved from Zilla Parishad, Thane on the same date. However, the Petitioner was not permitted to join at Zilla Parishad, Nanded and was ultimately allowed to join only on 25.07.2019. During the interregnum period, the Petitioner did not receive any salary, though no fault is attributable to him. It is submitted that despite being duly relieved from Zilla Parishad, Thane, it was Zilla Parishad, Nanded which restrained the Petitioner from joining. The Petitioner submitted representations to Zilla Parishad seeking payment of salary for the said period; however, the same were rejected on the ground that the Petitioner had not worked during that period. The said action was challenged before the Divisional Commissioner, who rejected the claim by applying the principle of “no work, no pay.” Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner approached this Court and in earlier proceedings, the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, again rejected the claim on the same ground. Hence, the present petition is filed.

5. Ms. Yogita S. Thorat, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 to 5 strongly opposed the prayers of the Petitioner and submitted that no vacant post was available during the relevant period and, therefore, the Petitioner could not be permitted to join earlier. It is further submitted that several other teachers were awaiting posting and in absence of an available post, the Petitioner could not be accommodated. Relying upon the principle of “no work, no pay,” it is contended that the Petitioner is not entitled to receive salary for the said period.

6. Having heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, it is not in dispute that the Petitioner is working as a teacher. It is also undisputed that he was initially serving under Zilla Parishad, Thane and was transferred to Zilla Parishad, Nanded in accordance with the Government policy. The Petitioner was relieved pursuant to the No Objection Certificate granted by Zilla Parishad, Nanded. Once the Petitioner was relieved, it was incumbent upon Zilla Parishad, Nanded to permit him to join. In view of the fact that the Petitioner was relieved only after issuance of the NOC by Zilla Parishad, Nanded, there was no justification for refusing to permit the Petitioner to join on the ground that no post was available. This Court, in Writ Petition Nos.10433 of 2019, 10440 of 2019 and other connected writ petitions, has considered an identical issue, which is squarely applicable to the present case. This Court observed in paragraphs 10 and 11 as under:-

                   “10. It is pertinent to note that in terms of the Government policy in regard to inter-district transfer, the petitioners applied for inter-district transfer which request was allowed and the petitioners were relieved but they were not allowed to join their duties by Zilla Parishad, Beed. This chronology of events clearly show that the petitioners were not at fault. They were relieved on 10.06.2016 and soon thereafter on 01.07.2016, they reported to Zilla Parishad, Beed for joining the duties. This clearly shows that the petitioners cannot be blamed for the anomalous situation created on account of inter district transfer. Therefore, it was not justified on the part of respondent No. 3 to have issued the impugned directions. This amounts to penalising the petitioners for no fault of theirs. Therefore, the order passed by respondent No. 3 is unsustainable.

                   11. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners were not ready to join the duties at Beed or at Hingoli. Therefore, without there being any fault on their part, it will not be proper to treat the period from the date of relieving from Hingoli and the date of joining again at Hingoli as a period of leave. This period is from 10.06.2016 to 28.08.2018. The petitioners are, therefore, entitled to the salary for this period since their continuity in service has been ensured. It is impermissible for the State to say that salary cannot be paid to them as they did not work. The petitioners were ready to join the duties. Thus, they were not responsible for the anomalous situation created by the respondents. For this reason, they cannot be deprived of the salary for the aforesaid period. Therefore, the impugned communication is arbitrary and capricious. It, therefore, cannot be sustained. All the petitions, therefore, will have to be allowed.”

7. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is evident that there was no fault on the part of the Petitioner and that it was Zilla Parishad, Nanded which prevented the Petitioner from joining duties. Consequently, the Petitioner is entitled to receive salary with effect from 20.11.2014.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Rule is discharged.

9. Zilla Parishad, Nanded is directed to pay the salary due and payable to the Petitioner from 20.11.2014 within a period of eight weeks from today.