Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was first appointed as a Work Superintendent in the Kanjirappally Block Office in 1961. In 1964 he was transferred to the Vazhoor Block Office and appointed as a PWD. Work Superintendent. He was happily working in that office for four years. In 1968 the Executive Engineer considered that his appointment to that post in 1964 was irregular, and terminated his services. This was immediately challenged by the petitioner and this Court in O. P. No. 4301 of 1969 held, by Ext. P1 judgment, that the termination was illegal and directed reinstatement of the petitioner. In Para.3 of the judgment this Court stated as follows: "In the result I quash Ext. P8 and direct respondents 1 to 4 to absorb the petitioner as Works Superintendent in the Public Works Department in terms of the Government Order Ext. R3 dated 17th March 1968. The petitioner would be entitled to his pay and allowance as Works Superintendent with effect from this date. His claim, if any, for arrears of pay and allowance from the date of relieving him from service as per Ext. P8 till this date will be considered by the Government on the merits of the case. In the circumstances of the case the parties will bear their own costs." 2. The petitioner was accordingly reinstated as from the date of the judgment, that is, 22nd November 1971, and his pay and allowances were also paid as from that date. The question, however, arose as regards the claim of the petitioner for the arrears of pay and allowances from the date of termination, that is, 23 71969, till the date of the judgment, that is. 22-11-1971. 3. According to the Government, the petitioner not having worked during that period, i. e., from 23 7 1969 to 22 111971, was not entitled to any payment of salary or other allowance. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he was always ready and willing to work, but was prevented from doing so by the Government owing to its illegal order of termination That order was set aside by this Court and therefore the petitioner should be deemed to have always been in service and thus entitled to bis full salary and other allowances. The Government Pleader, on the other hand, points out that he who did not work is not entitled to any payment, and since the petitioner was reinstated only with effect from the date of the judgment, he is not to be considered to be entitled to any salary for the anterior period when he did not work, that is, the period mentioned above. 4. It was held by this Court by Ext. P1 judgment that the termination of the petitioner's services was unwarranted. It was on the basis of that declaration that the Government was directed to reinstate the petitioner as from the date of the judgment. If the petitioner's services had not been thus unjustifiably terminated, he would have been in service and would have been working for the entire period. It was by a wrong action on the part of the Government that the petitioner had been prevented from working. It was so declared by this Court and the decision was not challenged. Having thus accepted the decision of this Court on this point as final, the Government cannot now say that it is entitled to take advantage of a wrong action and deny the petitioner his salary for the period during which he was willing to work but was unjustifiably kept out of service. 5. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to bis full pay and allowances for the period from 23 71969 to 22 111971. I direct the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's application for arrears and pass suitable orders. The Original Petition is accordingly disposed of. The parties will bear their respective costs. Allowed.