https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377871 Employees who actually rendered service under an interim order were held entitled to salary for that period, because denying payment for work already done was treated as begar prohibited by Article 23 of the Constitution. The Court also held that any salary already paid for the period of such service could not be recovered. en-us Fri, 11 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Apr 2019 06:42:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377871 Employees who actually rendered service under an interim order were held entitled to salary for that period, because denying payment for work already done was treated as begar prohibited by Article 23 of the Constitution. The Court also held that any salary already paid for the period of such service could not be recovered. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 11 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377871