A. K. YOG, J, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri A. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner-respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 are represented by Sri Tarun Verma, who has accepted notice vide endorsement on the petition, dated February 5, 2004. ( 2 ) ALL the respondents are represented. 1 his petition can be decided without calling for the counter and rejoinder affidavits. We decide this petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India, finally, at the admission stage itself, as contemplated under Chapter xxii Rule 2 (1), second proviso, Rules of the court, 1952. ( 3 ) PETITIONER, Sunder was serving as casual labour with temporary status in North eastern Railway, Gorakhpur. He was served with a memorandum of charge sheet on september 6, 1989 proposing major penalty on the charge of unauthorised absence. Petitioner claimed that he was never served with charge sheet. The Departmental inquiry proceeded. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated april 17, 1990 before Disciplinary Authority which considered it and passed following order: "on careful consideration of the enquiry Officers report; i agree with the findings of the E. O. I have come to the conclusion that Shri sunder son of Ghunai is not a fit person to be retained in service and I have decided to impose on Shri Sunder the penalty of removal from service. " ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved, petitioner filed O. A. No. 1087 of 1996 Sunder v. Union of India and others before the Central Administrative tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (hereinafter called "the CAT" ). ( 5 ) AN objection was taken regarding delay. The said O. A. has been allowed in part. vide impugned judgment and order dated november 11, 2003 inasmuch it has directed that the petitioner shall be reinstated on the post with continuity in service but the petitioner shall not be entitled to back wages. ( 6 ) BEING aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court and filed this writ petition challenging the above impugned judgment and order dated November 11, 2003/ annexure ,"1" to the Petition. ( 7 ) WE have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the writ petition. ( 8 ) AT the outset, we reproduce paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the writ petition, which read: "2. ( 7 ) WE have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the writ petition. ( 8 ) AT the outset, we reproduce paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the writ petition, which read: "2. That the petitioner, was appointed as khalasi under respondent No. 3 on June 16, 1978 and after completing about 6 years of i service the petitioner was given temporary status w. e. f. March 29, 1984. The petitioner was a regular Railway employee till he was illegally removed from service on April 17, 1990. The petitioner rendered continuous service till his removal and there was no complaint against the petitioner of any kind. The petitioner has completed the age of 54 years. The petitioner was not employed anywhere and was solely dependent on daily wage mason income which the petitioner was compelled to do during the period he was out of service and had no other income at all. 3. That the petitioner who was employed as khalasi, on October 22, 1988, suddenly fell ill due to liver pain, was taken to the railway Hospital, Gorakhpur and was advised by the Doctor for complete check up and the petitioner was admitted in railway Hospital on November 1, 1988 vide bht No. 54435. The petitioner could inform the respondent No. 3 nor he could apply for leave and the petitioner was treated as absent from duty without leave. 4. That from the Railway Hospital the petitioner was referred to another Doctor for treatment and it took time when he was fully declared fit by the doctor, and on october 20, 1989 the petitioner reported for duty to the respondent No. 3 but he was not allowed to resume duty. The petitioner was ready to work but was not allowed to work. There was no ground for not permitting the petitioner from performing his official duty. It is important to mention here that under the similar circumstances some other employees were removed from service and they were reinstated in service with all back wages. " ( 9 ) NO counter affidavit filed though copy of the writ petition was served on February 5, 2004 i. e. more than one year ago. ( 10 ) OTHERWISE also, we find that CAT has not endeavoured discussion (sic) and recorded a finding on the point whether the petitioner was gainfully engaged while he was kept out of job. ( 10 ) OTHERWISE also, we find that CAT has not endeavoured discussion (sic) and recorded a finding on the point whether the petitioner was gainfully engaged while he was kept out of job. ( 11 ) IT is admitted by the petitioner that he was not physically fit for a long time. The petitioner himself admits that he did not work for several years before he was removed or when he had approached CAT. There is another relevant circumstance, namely, that the petitioner could not get job/service inspite of making efforts. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of union of India v. Madhusudan Prasad AIR 2004 SC 977 : 2004 (1) SCC 43 : 2004-I-LLJ-454, wherein Apex Court has referred to its earlier decision in the case of managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar air 1994 SC 1074 : 1993 (4) SCC 727 : 1994-I-LLJ-162 and observed in 2004-I-LLJ-454 at pp. 455 and 456: "6. The above case was concerning an employee, proceeded, who was found guilty in an enquiry but the report was not furnished to the employee and show cause notice was not served on him. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the court directed appropriate order should be passed regarding the back wages. In the instant case, the Appellate authority directed reinstatement of the respondent and held that he was not entitled to get back wages for the period he was out of service. It may be noticed that the respondent was removed from service without any enquiry and he was not even given show cause notice prior to his dismissal from service. There was fault on the part of the employer in not following the principle of natural justice. These relevant facts were considered and the learned single Judge and also the division Bench ordered the payment of back wages. We do not think this is a fit case where the Fundamental Rule 54 could have been invoked by the authorities. We find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. " ( 13 ) A perusal of the impugned order shows that the CAT recorded categorical finding that the order of removal has been passed illegally and in arbitrary manner without caring for the legal procedure prescribed under rules set aside the order dated April 17, 1990. We find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. " ( 13 ) A perusal of the impugned order shows that the CAT recorded categorical finding that the order of removal has been passed illegally and in arbitrary manner without caring for the legal procedure prescribed under rules set aside the order dated April 17, 1990. There is no doubt that arbitrariness and justice cannot exist together. Element of arbitrariness vitiates the decision. In the given set of circumstances it constitutes victimisation. It will be too harsh to deny back wages to aa employee who is willing to work but deprived by the employer. Employee should not suffer because of no fault on his part. Similarly, he should not use litigation for enriching him. ( 14 ) ONCE removed from job in flagrant violation of rules completely denying concept of rule of law, particularly when employer is union of India, and the fact is that employee in order to keep him alive and soul and body together of his family compelled to take up casual job as mason is of no consequence. ( 15 ) LAW does not expect a naked and hungry man to strive for justice before Court. If one is compelled to earn his two times meal and work as mason, it is of little consequence in these days. That is the minimum, which one expects. We will like to point out that generally pursuing litigation in Courts or before authorities /tribunals is not for joy or pleasure one has to spend time, money and energy. Game of litigation is as expensive as any other modern game. ( 16 ) IN these circumstances, one can conceive the hardship both mental and physical and the money spent by the petitioner in litigation, while he was out of job. Even if the order of dismissal/removal is set aside neither the Court nor the employer can compensate the person who has suffered ignominiously in society and the hardships caused to his family. Time, which has run out cannot be rolled back. Loss caused due to malnutrition, absence of education at right time, loss of opportunities cannot be compensated. These circumstances shall have no bearing if it is found that employee was guilty of charges and self-responsible for inviting the trouble. Time, which has run out cannot be rolled back. Loss caused due to malnutrition, absence of education at right time, loss of opportunities cannot be compensated. These circumstances shall have no bearing if it is found that employee was guilty of charges and self-responsible for inviting the trouble. ( 17 ) THEREFORE, considering the findings recorded by the CAT that order of punishment was passed illegally and in arbitrary manner without caring for the legal procedure prescribed under the rules, in our opinion, cat was not justified in depriving the petitioner of back wages. ( 18 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner informs us that the petitioner has already been reinstated. We have been informed by Sri A. P. Srivastava that the judgment of the CAT reinstating the petitioner has not been challenged anywhere. This shows that the employer has already accepted the verdict of the CAT by permitting the petitioner to join the service. We find no justification in denying the petitioner his back wages. In the case of registrar (Administration), High Court of orissa, Cuttack v. Sisir Kanta Satapathy (dead)by L. Rs. and another, AIR 1999 SC 3265 : 1999 (7) SCC 725 , the Apex Court has held that if an employee was willing to work but arbitrarily deprived from discharging his duties, should be paid his wages. The dictum of paying half back wages, in our considered opinion, when employer is acting arbitrarily, does not apply. ( 19 ) IN the result, the writ petition is liable to succeed. The impugned judgment and order dated November 11, 2003 passed by Central administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 1087 of 1996 is set aside to the extent that it directed that the petitioner will not be entitled for any back wages. We hereby issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay entire back wages to the petitioner along with 9 per cent per annum simple interest within six weeks of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. ( 20 ) WRIT petition allowed to the extent and subject to the direction given above. No order as to costs. . .