JUDGMENT & ORDER : Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner with following prayers:- “By appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned orders dated 2.8.2000, 16.8.2001 and 22.8.2005 may kindly be quashed and set aside. The conditions imposed in order dated 8.7.2004 may kindly be declared to be illegal and thus non-est. The respondents should be directed to implement the order dated 8.7.2004 without insisting for the conditions mentioned therein. The petitioner should be treated to have join service in pursuance to order dated 8.7.2004 till his retirement with all consequential benefits of salary and other allowances admissible as per rules. On attaining the age of superannuation he should be allowed to retire on the pay and allowances as arrived thereof. Any other relief which this honorable court deems fit in the facts and circumstances may kindly be granted.” 2. The facts noticed are that in the year 1973 the petitioner was appointed as Enforcement Inspector in Food and Civil Supplies Department of the Government of Rajasthan and thereafter was promoted to the post of Enforcement officer in August, 1998. While the petitioner was working on the post of Enforcement Officer under the District Supplying Officer, Dausa, the Secretary, Food & Civil Supplies Department, while exercising powers conferred on him under Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short, ‘Rules of 1996’), compulsorily retired the petitioner from service vide order dated 02/08/2000. The petitioner challenged the order of compulsory retirement dated 02/08/2000 before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in Appeal No. 2235/2000, however, the Tribunal, vide its judgment dated 16/08/2001 dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of compulsory retirement of the case. The respondents, vide order dated 08/07/2004 revoked the order of compulsory retirement passed under Rule 53(1) of the Rules, 1996 after considering the representations in light of the memorandum of Finance Department bearing reference No. F.15(3)FD/Niyam/99 dated 03/12/2002 on the recommendations of the High Power Committee constituted for the purpose after examining the service record in depth. However, the order contained a condition that the period from compulsory retirement till the time when the services of the petitioner were to be restored shall be treated as dies non and the principle of no work no pay shall be applied. However, the order contained a condition that the period from compulsory retirement till the time when the services of the petitioner were to be restored shall be treated as dies non and the principle of no work no pay shall be applied. The order also imposed a condition that all the retiral benefits shall be redeposited by the employee concerned within a period of one month from restoration of service. 3. It is pertinent to note that these conditions are under challenge by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner, whose name stood at serial no.2 in the order dated 08/07/2004, made an application for restoration of his services along with an affidavit as sought by the respondents which included acceptance of the condition of dies non and the principle of no work no pay and also an assurance that all the benefits drawn by him shall be refunded within one month of joining the services. The petitioner, however, made a representation on 19/04/2005 whereby he protested the conditions. However, the respondents issued notice on 05/04/2005 and 17/05/2005 whereby the petitioner was informed that he had not joined the duties in accordance with the order dated 08/07/2004 and if the conditions, mentioned in the order dated 08/07/2004 were not complied with within a period of fifteen days, then the order dated 08/07/2004 shall be quashed with immediate effect. The petitioner responded to the said notice denying his not accepting the conditions. Vide order dated 22/08/2005, the order of withdrawing compulsory retirement dated 08/07/2004 was quashed and set aside with immediate effect. 5. Counsel for the petitioner informed that the controversy involved is squarely covered by this Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3938/2005, Jagan Nath Trivedi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 21/11/2013 where the conditions imposed by the respondents were held to be illegal. The relevant portion of the judgment dated 21/11/2013 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Jagan Nath Trivedi (supra) is as follows:- “Once a decision was taken for withdrawal of the compulsory retirement, then the government servant is required to be treated in continue service for all purposes. The stand of the respondents is that the period in which the government servant remained out of employment cannot be treated as ‘duty’ as defined under Rule 7(8) of the Rules of 1951. The stand of the respondents is that the period in which the government servant remained out of employment cannot be treated as ‘duty’ as defined under Rule 7(8) of the Rules of 1951. The term ‘duty’ as prescribed in the Rules of 1951 means service as a probationer or apprentice, provided that such service is followed by confirmation, joining time, in respect of a government servant returning from leave the day of taking over charge of the same post from which he proceeds on leave, probationer - trainee and the period in which a government servant remained absent from duties during the course of an instruction or training in India under special orders of the government. The term ‘duty’ as such nowhere deals with the eventuality that exists in present case. True it is, the petitioner did not work with the respondents 4 in the period he remained out of employment due to compulsory retirement, but such retirement was set aside by the employer, at its own. This fact clearly indicates that the respondents accepted their fault in placing the petitioner under compulsory retirement. The petitioner cannot be penalised for a fault on the part of the respondents. The position would had been different, if the petitioner would have been placed under compulsory retirement by way of penalty, and that penalty would have been substituted by some other lesser punishment. Having considered facts of the case, I do not find any reason justifiable to detain the wages under the orders impugned. The petition for writ, therefore, is allowed. The orders Anx.2 and 3 are declared illegal to the extent they deny the payment of complete wages to the petitioner for the period he remained out of employment due to his placement under compulsory retirement in pursuant to the order Anx.1 dated 15.3.2001.” 6. The petitioner is declared entitled for complete wages for the period he faced compulsory retirement under the order dated 15.3.2001. “The respondents’ counsel, however, stated that in this case, the petitioner had filed an affidavit and was himself opposing the conditions in the order dated 08/07/2004. 7. The petitioner is declared entitled for complete wages for the period he faced compulsory retirement under the order dated 15.3.2001. “The respondents’ counsel, however, stated that in this case, the petitioner had filed an affidavit and was himself opposing the conditions in the order dated 08/07/2004. 7. I have considered the submissions and find that the controversy involved herein was the controversy before coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Jagan Nath Trivedi (supra) where the condition of denying the wages of intervening period on recalling the order of compulsory retirement was held to be illegal. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed on the same terms as laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Jagan Nath Trivedi (supra). However, the petitioner shall deposit the benefits received by him on account of his compulsory retirement, if not deposited already.