W.P.(MD)No.8815 of 2006. The said Writ Petition was allowed on 09.10.2007 and thereby the Petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with back wages and monetary benefits. The order passed in the above Writ Petition was not implemented and Contempt Notice was issued and thereafter, the District Collector and the Block Development Officer preferred Writ Appeal and the Writ Appeal was dismissed. Thereafter the Writ Petitioner filed Contempt Petition No.474/2009 and the Respondents filed Counter stating that Petitioner was reinstated on 14.12.2009 and seeking permission to pay the arrears of salary of Petitioner in installments due to the financial constrains of Panchayat. The Petitioner was deputed to Kulapuram Village Panchayat to hold the additional charge by order dated 12.02.2010. He was doing the allotted work both in Thoothoor Village Panchayat and as well as Kulapuram Village Panchayat. Thereafter, the Competent authority namely, Block Development Officer in his proceedings, dated 13.04.2010, calculated the back wages and directed the Panchayat to pay the calculated amount by granting sanction. The Block Development Officer also directed the Panchayat to pay the calculated amount without any delay by communication dated 11.06.2010. The Block Development Officer, by order dated 17.09.2010, relieved the Petitioner from the Kulapuram Village Panchayat from holding the post of Additional charge. On 17.09.2010, the entire charge along with panchayat record was duly checked and received by the Panchayat authority after making the necessary acknowledgement. That being the situation, the District Collector directed the Village Panchayat to pay the arrears immediately as per the Block Development Officer's Communication, by order dated 30.06.2011. Consequently, monetary benefits were paid. Therefore, arguments advanced by the respondent's counsel that 'no work, no pay' will not be applicable to the present case. Since the respondents filed an undertaking affidavit before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court seeking permission to pay the arrears of salary of petitioner in installments due to the financial constrains of Panchayat and the same was accepted and the respondents were exonerated from the contempt proceedings. Now, the Respondents have no locus standi to state that without getting prior permission from them, the Panchayat has disbursed the arrears of salary of the Petitioner is erroneous and the same cannot be accepted. Since the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, categorically held that recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV (Groups C & D) would be impermissible in law. Since the petitioner also belongs to Class III and Class IV (Groups C & D), in the light of the recent judgment mentioned above, the impugned order of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ recovery is liable to be set aside.
