Judgment M. Jaichandren, J. 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. The writ appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 6.7.2010, made in W.P.No.1373 of 2010. 3. The respondents in the writ petition, in W.P.No.1373 of 2010, are the appellants in the present writ appeal. The respondent herein had filed the writ petition, in W.P.No.1373 of 2010, before this Court praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash the order passed by the third appellant, dated 6.11.2009 and to direct the appellants to regularise the service of the respondent, from 30.1.2005 to 14.5.2009 and to pay the backwages and to grant him appropriate promotion and the monetary benefits for which he would be entitled to, in view of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, dated 27.4.2009, in W.P.No.40062 of 2006. The Division Bench of this Court had passed the order, dated 27.4.2009, made in W.P.No.40062 of 2006, holding that the punishment of compulsory retirement from service, imposed on the respondent, was too harsh in nature, since the other officer, namely, R.P. Singh, against whom similar charges had been framed as that of the respondent, had been given a lesser punishment. Accordingly, the Division Bench of this Court had set aside the order of compulsory retirement of service passed against the respondent and had imposed the punishment of reduction of pay, by three stages in the time scale of pay, for a period of two years, without cumulative effect. Thereafter, the respondent had filed the writ petition in W.P.No.1373 of 2010. 4. The learned single Judge had passed an order, dated 6.7.2010, made in W.P.No.1373 of 2010, directing the payment of 50% of the backwages and other monetary benefits, for the period, from 22.6.2006 to 15.5.2009. Challenging the said order, the appellants have preferred the present writ appeal before this Court. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants had submitted that the respondent had prayed for two reliefs in the writ petition, in W.P.No.40062 of 2006. Challenging the said order, the appellants have preferred the present writ appeal before this Court. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants had submitted that the respondent had prayed for two reliefs in the writ petition, in W.P.No.40062 of 2006. The Division Bench of this Court had passed an order, dated 27.4.2009, made in W.P.No.40062 of 2006, setting aside the order of punishment of compulsory retirement from service imposed on the respondent and by imposing a lesser punishment of reduction of pay by three stages in the time scale of pay, for a period of two years, without cumulative effect. However, the relief prayed for by the respondent in the said writ petition, with regard to the payment of backwages, had not been granted. Therefore, it would not be open to the respondent to file a fresh writ petition, in W.P.No.1373 of 2010, praying for the payment of backwages and other monetary benefits for the period, from 30.1.2005 to 14.5.2009. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants had further submitted that, as per Rule 55 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001, the respondent is not entitled to receive the backwages for the period when he was not in service, unless he had been exonerated from all the charges levelled against him. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent had submitted that, in view of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, dated 27.4.2009, made in W.P.No.40062 of 2006, the respondent was entitled to receive 50% of the backwages and other monetary benefits, from 22.6.2006 to 15.5.2009, as the punishment of compulsory retirement from service imposed on the respondent had been held to be invalid in the eye of law. Further, Rule 55 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001, cannot be invoked by the appellants to deny the backwages to the respondent, as the said Rule would not be binding on the powers of this Court exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 6.7.2010, made in W.P.No.1373 of 2010, ought to be sustained. 8. Therefore, the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 6.7.2010, made in W.P.No.1373 of 2010, ought to be sustained. 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 6.7.2010, made in W.P.No.1373 of 2010, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 9. It is clear that no backwages could be paid to the respondent, in view of Rule 55 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001, as he had not been exonerated of all the charges levelled against him. Even though the Division Bench of this Court had passed an order, dated 27.4.2009, in W.P.No.40062 of 2006, modifying the punishment imposed on the respondent, the relief prayed for by the respondent in the writ petition, in W.P.No.40062 of 2006, had not been granted by the said Division Bench of this Court. No appeal had been preferred by the respondent against the order of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 27.4.2009, made in W.P.No.40062 of 2006. As such, it would not be open to the respondent to file a separate writ petition, in W.P. No. 1373 of 2010, praying for the payment of backwages, for the period, from 30.1.2005 to 14.5.2009, in view of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, dated 27.4.2009, made in W.P. No. 40062 of 2006. 10. Since, the respondent had not worked during the relevant period, he would not be entitled to the backwages and therefore, the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 6.7.2010, made in W.P.No.1373 of 2010, is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside. The writ appeal is allowed. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed.