JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 12/8/2016 (Annex.12), order dated 21/4/2016 (Annex.4) and order dated 18/7/2016 (Annex.8). 2. Further relief has been sought that name of the petitioner be excluded from the order dated 18/7/2016 and her place of posting be decided afresh as per the preference given by the petitioner. 3. Before filing the present writ petition, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8458/2016, wherein on 28/7/2016 the following order was passed: "Heard. The contention of the petitioner is that she is a widow lady and after having been declared surplus, she has been transferred from Government Senior Secondary School, Bagicha, Rasinghnagar to Government Primary School, 70 NP. It is also contended that against the said transfer order, a representation has already been moved which is yet to be decided. Mr. Sajjan Singh appearing on behalf of Dr. P.S.Bhati, learned Additional Advocate General is directed to accept the notices. The counsel for the respondents fairly submits that in case, the petitioner approaches the department within a period of one week by filing a representation, the said representation will be decided in terms of guidelines dated 15.06.2016. In view of the statement made by the counsel for the respondents, I propose to dispose of this writ petition that in case, the petitioner submits a fresh representation within a period of one week days from today along with certified copy of this order, the same shall be considered and decided by passing a speaking order preferably within a period of two weeks. In case, the petitioner files the said representation within the stipulated period, she shall not be relieved, if not already relieved, till final decision on the representation. With the above direction, the present petition is disposed of. Needless to say, if any grievance of the petitioner still survives, she shall be at liberty to avail remedy in accordance with law." 4. When the present writ petition came up for admission before the Court, by order dated 30/8/2016 it was inter alia directed as under: "Heard. Earlier petitioner was given liberty to approach the department by moving a representation which was to be decided by passing a speaking order. However, the impugned order has been passed without assigning any reason. Issue notice as to why this writ petition be not accepted. Earlier petitioner was given liberty to approach the department by moving a representation which was to be decided by passing a speaking order. However, the impugned order has been passed without assigning any reason. Issue notice as to why this writ petition be not accepted. Issue notice on the stay application also. Rule is made returnable within a period of one week. Notice be given 'dasti' to learned counsel. Put up on 08.09.2016. In the mean time the petitioner is allowed to continue to discharge her duties at the current place till the next date of hearing." 5. Whereafter, on 10/3/2017 when the present writ petition came up before the Court, after filing of the documents Annex.13 to Annex.17 on record, containing copy of an undated order indicating that the petitioner was relieved from place of her posting on 21/7/2016 (Annex.13), it was observed and ordered by this Court as under: "Be that as it may, the interim order passed on 30.8.2016 is clear and it was incumbent upon the respondents to permit the petitioner to discharge her duties at the place she was working i.e. BEO, Raisinghnagar. In view of the above, it is deemed appropriate and hence ordered that, effect and operation of the order dated 18.7.2016 (Annex/8) shall remain stayed. The petitioner shall be paid her monthly salary from month to month. After dictating the order, Ms. RR Kanwar, learned counsel for the respondents appears and prays for some time to file reply and to take instructions." 6. Pursuant to the above order, the petitioner joined at the Office of Block Elementary Education Officer, Rainsinghnagar on 24/3/2017. Whereafter, by order dated 3/7/2017, the petitioner was accorded posting at Government Upper Primary School, 11 LNP, Sriganganagar where she joined on 5/7/2017. 7. With the passing of order dated 3/7/2017, though the cause projected in the writ petition regarding petitioner's posting came to an end, by way of additional affidavit filed by the petitioner it was pointed out that the petitioner was not paid salary since September, 2016 despite directions of the Court dated 10/3/2017. The plea raised by the petitioner was disputed by the respondent Department inter alia indicating that as the petitioner has not given her duty anywhere from 22/7/2016 to 23/3/2017, she was not entitled for any salary for the said period. 8. The plea raised by the petitioner was disputed by the respondent Department inter alia indicating that as the petitioner has not given her duty anywhere from 22/7/2016 to 23/3/2017, she was not entitled for any salary for the said period. 8. The petitioner, whereafter has filed certain documents inter alia indicating her stand and reiterated that though she was not relieved on 21/7/2016 as claimed by the respondents, she was denied joining pursuant to the interim order dated 30/8/2016, besides the fact that she was not well during the period 25/7/2016 to 31/8/2016 and 9/1/2017 to 22/2/2017 etc. and has also placed material in this regard on record. 9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire action of the respondents in dealing with the petitioner smacks of vendetta inasmuch as though the petitioner was not relieved on 21/7/2016, the document was made up only to indicate that the petitioner had been relieved prior to passing of the order dated 28/7/2016 in Civil Writ Petition No.8458/2016 as in the said order it was directed that if the petitioner had not been relieved, till final decision of her representation, she would not be relieved and after the representation was decided, in the present writ petition interim order was granted that the petitioner would be allowed to continue to discharge her duty at the current place of posting. 10. Pointing out to the copy of the order (Annex.13) produced by the petitioner and copy of the order produced as Annex.R/3 by the respondents, it was submitted that the comparison of the two documents would reveal that the order dated 21/7/2016 (Annex.R-3/Annex.13) is a made up document and, therefore, once the petitioner was not relieved from her place of posting and was not permitted to work at the said place pursuant to the directions of this Court, the respondents cannot take advantage of their own wrong and deny the petitioner her legitimate salary for the period in question. 11. Reliance was placed on Mohammad Sabir vs. State & Ors. : S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7317/2013 decided on 6/10/2017, Somesh Tiwari vs. Union of India , (2009) 2 SCC 592 and Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board vs. C. Muddaiah , (2007) 7 SCC 689 . 12. 11. Reliance was placed on Mohammad Sabir vs. State & Ors. : S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7317/2013 decided on 6/10/2017, Somesh Tiwari vs. Union of India , (2009) 2 SCC 592 and Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board vs. C. Muddaiah , (2007) 7 SCC 689 . 12. Learned counsel for the respondents reiterated that the petitioner has been relieved on 21/7/2016 and, therefore, after the earlier writ petition filed by her was dismissed, she was required to join at the transferred place and even under the interim order passed in the present writ petition she was required to report at the transferred place, however, as the petitioner chose not to join at the transferred place, she cannot claim salary for the said period on the principle of 'no work, no pay', as admittedly for the said period the petitioner did not work at any place and, therefore, once fresh order of posting has been made and the petitioner has joined pursuant to the said order, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed as having become infructuous. 13. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 14. So far as the relief claimed in the writ petition is concerned, with the passing of fresh order and petitioner having joined pursuant thereto, the writ petition has virtually been rendered infructuous. However, the fact remains that the petitioner was not paid salary for the period 22/7/2016 to 23/3/2017 regarding which there is dispute between the parties as to whether the petitioner did not come on duty during the said period and/or she was not permitted to discharge her duties at a particular place. While the case of the respondents is that the petitioner was relieved from the office of Block Elementary Education Officer on 21/7/2016, the petitioner claims that the document indicating such relieving is a made up document only to frustrate the claim of the petitioner. 15. A look at the document Annex.13, which was handed over to the petitioner after the interim order dated 30/8/2016 was passed by this Court and the document Annex.R/3 produced by the respondents reveals that while the document produced by the petitioner does not bear any outward number, the document produced by the respondents does bear outward numbers and it is claimed that the said order was sent to the petitioner by ordinary post. The claim of sending the said document by ordinary post apparently cannot be accepted looking to the fact that the petitioner was very much available for receiving the said order, if the same has been passed by the respondents in ordinary course. 16. The plea raised by the respondents is also belied from the document Annex. AA/1 produced by the petitioner along with the additional affidavit dated 4/1/2018, which is an application given by the petitioner seeking medical leave on which the Block Elementary Education Officer on 25/7/2016 has indicated as under: 17. If the petitioner had been relieved on 21/7/2016 by the Block Elementary Education Officer, there was no reason for the said officer to indicate that the petitioner be relieved, on 25/7/2016 i.e. just four days after the alleged relieving of the petitioner. 18. In view of the above state of affairs, it is apparent that the petitioner was not relieved from the office of Block Elementary Education Officer, Raisinghnagar on 21/7/2016. The reason for claim made in this regard by the respondents is not far to seek, inasmuch as the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was decided on 28/7/2016 and it was directed that she would not be relieved if not already relieved and, therefore, the respondents wanted to reflect that she stood relieved prior to passing of the order dated 28/7/2016, which action of the respondents under any circumstance cannot be approved. 19. In view thereof, the fact that the petitioner had not been relieved prior to passing of the order dated 28/7/2016 and on 30/8/2016 when again it was directed that she will continue to discharge her duties at the current place, the blame squarely lies with the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to discharge her duties and it cannot be said that the petitioner failed to discharge her duties from 22/7/2016 to 23/3/2017, as alleged. 20. Hon'Ble Supreme Court in case of Somesh Tiwari laid down that if the person was willing to work but was illegally and unlawfully not allowed to do so, the Court may in the circumstances direct the authority to grant him all benefits considering as if he had worked. 21. 20. Hon'Ble Supreme Court in case of Somesh Tiwari laid down that if the person was willing to work but was illegally and unlawfully not allowed to do so, the Court may in the circumstances direct the authority to grant him all benefits considering as if he had worked. 21. Again in C. Muddaiah it was laid down that when an injustice has been meted out to an employee and he has been wrongfully, unfairly and with oblique motive deprived of any benefit, it would not be open to authorities to claim that he has not worked and thus not entitled to the benefits as it would amount to allowing a party to take undue advantage of its own wrong. 22. In view of the above, the claim of the respondents that as the petitioner had not worked for the period 22/7/2016 to 23/3/2017, she was not entitled to grant of salary etc. cannot be countenanced. However, from the material which has been placed on record, admittedly, she was medically unfit to work for considerable long time during the said period from July, 2016 to March, 2017, as already noticed above, which aspect also needs to be taken into consideration. 23. In view of the subsequent development, whereby, the petitioner has been accorded posting and she has joined, the writ petition filed by petitioner has been virtually rendered infructuous but for the issue of payment of salary. 24. In view of what has been discussed hereinbefore, it is directed that for the period 22/7/2016 to 23/3/2017 the respondents shall treat the petitioner on duty subject to taking into consideration her various applications seeking medical leave regarding which the material has been placed on record. Subject to the medical leave for the said period, the petitioner would be treated to have discharged her duties at the office of Block Elementary Education Officer, Raisinghnagar based on which the appropriate authority would pass order regarding regularization of said period and pay her all consequential benefits i.e. salary etc. Needful be done by the respondents within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the respondents. 25. Needful be done by the respondents within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the respondents. 25. Though the conduct of the respondents, as noticed hereinbefore, calls for taking a serious view, in the circumstances of the case wherein though the petitioner was not permitted to join/discharge her duties for a considerable long period of about 08 months, as she has chosen not to approach this Court despite pendency of her writ petition, the matter would rest at the directions issued hereinbefore. 26. The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of.