Judgment 1. The petitioner filed O.A.No.7529 of 1997, seeking for a direction to pay the petitioner the arrears of pay and other allowances from 20.01.1979 to 10.05.1983 with all attendant benefits. 2. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was compulsorily retired on charges being framed against him under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules. The charge against the petitioner was that he deserted his legally wedded wife Smt. Chandrammal and was living with one Parvathy, daughter of Sudarsanam. The second charge was that he beat his legally wedded wife on 11. 1977 at No.18, Thiruvika Nagar when she visited him and requested for the children to be sent back to her. 3. As against the said compulsorily retirement, he filed an appeal and review. All were rejected and the Government also confirmed the said order by G.O.Ms.No.582, Home, dated 3. 1982. Thereafter, the petitioner made a further attempt by bringing the statement of his first wife that she had condoned his action and the Government should take sympathetic view. Therefore, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.799, Home, dated 14. 1983. In paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Government Order, it has been stated as follows: "3. Under the rule 15(B) the Tamil Nadu Public Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955, the Government have reviewed the case carefully with connected records. The Government on humanitarian grounds have decided to accept the request of the Ex. Police Constable 2039 Thiru Singaram of Madras City Police which was endorsed by his wife Smt. Chandrammal. They accordingly decided to reinstate the petitioner to service on the basis of Thirumathi Chandrammal his first wifes request pardoning the delinquencies committed by him. The Government accordingly set aside the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic Madras in Rc.No.275/Fr/A14/77 Commissioner of Police, and direct that Thiru M. Singaram, Ex. Police Constable 2039 of Madras City Police be reinstated to service forthwith. 4. The Director General of Police is requested to regulate the period spent under suspension and out of employment by Ex. Police Constable 2039 Thiru Singaram of Madras City Police, under Fr 54." 4. Pursuant to the said direction of reinstatement, the petitioner joined duty. Police Constable 2039 of Madras City Police be reinstated to service forthwith. 4. The Director General of Police is requested to regulate the period spent under suspension and out of employment by Ex. Police Constable 2039 Thiru Singaram of Madras City Police, under Fr 54." 4. Pursuant to the said direction of reinstatement, the petitioner joined duty. In the meantime, the writ petition filed by him, challenging the compulsorily retirement being W.P.No.2373 of 1983 stood transferred to the Tribunal by virtue of Section 29 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The said writ petition was renumbered as T.A.No.386 of 1989. Since the petitioner got the relief at the hands of the Government, the said T.A. was dismissed as infructuous, by Tribunal vide its order, dated 211. 1996. The petitioner after serving in the Department pursuant to the leniency shown by the State Government, would have retired from service during the year 1999. After the direction given to the second respondent to regulate the period of non employment, an order was passed by the Director, as set out in the reply affidavit, dated 1. 1999. In paragraph 3 of the reply affidavit, it has been averred as follows: "3. ...The period of out of employment from 20.1.79 to 5. 83 was treated as 33 days Earned Leave from 20.1.79 to 22. 79. 90 days UEL on Private Affairs (= Pay) from 22. 79 to 25. 79 and 1450 days leave without Pay from 25. 79 to 83. In S. Bill No.163/Pay (V)(2)/86, a sum of Rs.988.70 being the eligible Pay and allowances for the period from 20.2.79 to 25. 79 was claimed and paid to the individual. The remaining period of 1450 days i.e. 25. 79 to 5. 83 was treated as Leave without Pay and that no Pay and allowances for the period were drawn and paid to him." 5. Notwithstanding the fact that the period has been regulated in terms of the Fundamental Rules so as to help the case of the petitioner to avail his terminal benefits, the petitioner without any legal basis filed O.A., claiming backwages for the entire period. 6. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this court and was renumbered as W.P.No.35602 of 2006. 6. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this court and was renumbered as W.P.No.35602 of 2006. The petitioner got the benefits of reinstatement only under the order of the Government, as referred to above and in that order, there is no direction to pay backwages. Naturally, the period of non employment will have to be regulated in accordance with the Fundamental Rules. In the absence of any court order, the petitioner cannot claim, as a matter of right, the backwages for the said period. 7. In the light of the same, there is no case made out by the petitioner to grant the relief as requested by him. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.