JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Manish Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has come up against part of judgment of State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow passed on 7.1.2009 to the extent it has denied arrears of salary to petitioner from the date, he was out of employment pursuant to the order of removal/dismissal dated 29.2.1992, which has been set aside by Tribunal on the ground that no charge of mis-conduct under Rule 29 of U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956 was found proved against petitioner. 3. It is contended that once dismissal order has been found illegal as the charge itself was not proved, denial of salary to petitioner for the period, he was forced not to serve the department pursuant to illegal order of dismissal passed by authority, is impermissible and this part of judgment of Tribunal is clearly erroneous and illegal. 4. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute this fact and it is also evident from record that Tribunal has set aside order of dismissal as well as appellate and revisional order and has clearly recorded finding that charge of mis-conduct was not proved against petitioner. 5. In these circumstances, denial of arrears of salary on the ground that he did not perform any duty amounts to giving benefit to respondents of their own wrong in as much as petitioner who was ready to perform function or discharge the duty but respondents under the cover of illegal order of dismissal, which has been set aside deprived him, prevented him from performing any duty. 6. The principle of “no work no pay” will not apply to this case. This Court in Brijendra Prakash Kulshrestha v. Director of Education and others, 2007(3) ADJ 1 (DB), has considered applicability of “no work no pay” and it has been held that an employer cannot deny salary to an employee, who is always willing and ready to work but was not allowed to do so by an act or omission directly attributable to employer. 7. In Bhanu Pratap v. Director, Ayurvedic and Unani Sewae, U.P. Lucknow and others, 2011(11) ADJ 606 , this Court said: “9. 7. In Bhanu Pratap v. Director, Ayurvedic and Unani Sewae, U.P. Lucknow and others, 2011(11) ADJ 606 , this Court said: “9. This Court is of considered view that dismissal of petitioner from service having been found wholly illegal, and it is also having been seen that he was denied work on the post in question by employer in a wholly illegal manner, petitioner should be given relief of reinstatement with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary. This would be in consonance with the principle that an employee has ‘no right to work’ but only right to claim salary. In absence of anything to show that employee himself was unwilling to work, principle of “No Work No Pay’ ought not to be applied in such a case. Such a principle in a case like this, if applied, would amount to confer a premium upon employer to enjoy benefit of a fault of his own. This would amount to allowing him (employer) to take advantage of his own wrong, which is not permissible in law particularly in a Court of equity and justice. It is against all canons of justice.” 8. Here is a case which do not justifiably attract principle of “no work no pay” for the reason that petitioner has been made to suffer by a total illegal, arbitrary and unjust action on the part of respondents. 9. Writ petition is allowed to the extent that judgment of Tribunal in so far as it denies arrears of salary to petitioner because he remained out of job is concerned, the same is set aside and we direct respondents that petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including arrears of salary. 10. Writ petition is partly allowed in the aforesaid manner.