Judgment , J. 1. After his acquittal in a criminal case pertaining to embezzlement of the funds of the Society where he was employed, the petitioner filed CWP No.20521 of 2002 claiming reinstatement. The said writ petition was partly allowed on August 11, 2003 and while setting aside the order of dismissal, it was directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service. However, back wages were denied to him. Alleging non-compliance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed COCP No.93 of 2004 in which show cause notice was issued to the respondents. The petitioner, however, thereafter moved an application to withdraw the said contempt petition. The application was supported by the petitioners affidavit dated 5th March, 2004, which reads as follows: 1. That the respondent department allowed me to join in the service and also paid all my dues towards the respondent and also gave me my due promotions as per rules. Now nothing is due towards the respondents. Thus, now I have no grudge against the respondents and for the reasons I am not willing to proceed with the above said C. O. C. P. No.93 of 2004 and the same may be allowed to withdraw in the interest of justice. 2. The petitioner himself having come up with the above reproduced stand, the contempt petition was dismissed as withdrawn on March 11, 2004 in the following terms: Prayer made in the present application is for permission to withdraw the contempt petition on the ground that the order of this Court dated 11.8.2003 has been complied with in its entirety. C. M. allowed. Contempt petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Rule is discharged. 3. Alleging that he has not been reinstated as a Secretary of the Society, the petitioner has filed this second contempt petition. In response to the show cause notice, respondents No.5 and 6 have filed their separate affidavits. 4. The petitioner has also filed a rejoinder to the aforesaid affidavits, which is taken on record. 5. A perusal of the resolution passed by the Society, which the petitioner has appended as Annexure P-3 with the rejoinder, itself reveals that he has been reinstated on the post of Secretary and as stated at the Bar by Learned Counsel for respondents No.5 and 6, he is being paid salary in the pay scale as admissible against the post of Secretary. 6. 6. It, however, appears that one more official is already working as Secretary of the Society, therefore, the petitioners grievance is against not allowing him to work as Secretary of the Society. 7. It is well settled that an employer cannot be compelled to take work from an employee so long as the rank, status or pay scale of the employee is not reduced. The petitioner holds the rank of Secretary and is paid salary in the pay scale admissible on the said post. In this view of the matter, he cannot be permitted to make any grievance. 8. As far as the claim for arrears is concerned, the Division Bench has specifically denied the petitioners claim for back wages. He cannot, thus, be permitted to claim back wages. So far as the payment of salary from the date of reinstatement is concerned, firstly, the petitioner himself filed affidavit in his previous contempt petition that all the arrears have been paid to him, secondly, it is been pointed out by Learned Counsel for respondents No.5 and 6 that there are recovery awards against the petitioner to the tune of Rs.2,92,000/-. Those awards have never been challenged by the petitioner and have attained finality. If that is so, respondents No.5 and 6 are fully entitled to recover the dues in terms of those awards from the petitioner. 9. In this view of the matter, respondents No.5 and 6 are permitted not to pay salary to the petitioner so long as all the dues in terms of the awards, are not recovered from him along with permissible interest. However, after effecting the recoveries in terms of the awards, referred to above, the respondents are directed to start paying salary to the petitioner regularly, as may be admissible against the post of Secretary. Disposed of. .