JUDGMENT : (Rajnish Kumar, J.) 1. Heard Shri S.K. Gaur, Advocate holding brief of Shri Amitabh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. 2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.08.2011, contained in annexure no.1 to the writ petition, to the extent it denies the arrears of salary for the period w.e.f. 26.12.1997 to 15.06.2009. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to pay the arrears of salary for the said period in accordance with Rule 54-A read with Rule 53(1) & (2) of the Financial Hand Book, Vol.-II, Part-II to IV (here-in-after referred as Financial Hand Book) alongwith interest. 3. The facts, relevant for disposal of the instant writ petition, are that the petitioner was suspended in contemplation of departmental proceedings for the alleged misconduct by means of the order dated 12.09.1997. Thereafter the petitioner was dismissed from service by means of the order dated 26.12.1997 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Gonda, invoking the provisions of Rule 8(2)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules-1991 (here-in-after referred as Rules of 1991). The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal as well as the suspension order, before this Court, in Writ Petition No.919 (S/S) of 1998; Abhay Nath Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others. The writ petition was allowed by means of the judgment and order dated 17.04.2009 and the respondents were directed to allow the petitioner to work on the post, which he was holding prior to the order of dismissal and shall be paid salary and allowances as admissible to him. The operative portion of the order dated 17.04.2009 is extracted here-in-below:- "Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 26.12.1997 and 12.09.1997 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Gonda, are hereby set-aside. The opposite parties are directed to allow the petitioner to work on the post which he was holding prior to the order of dismissal and shall be paid salary and allowances as admissible to him. However, the above order will not prevent the respondents from initiating departmental enquiry against the petitioners, if they so desire." 4. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, the petitioner was allowed to join. However, the above order will not prevent the respondents from initiating departmental enquiry against the petitioners, if they so desire." 4. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, the petitioner was allowed to join. Though it was provided in the aforesaid order dated 17.04.2009, while allowing the writ petition, that the above order will not prevent the respondents from initiating departmental enquiry against the petitioners, if they so desire but admittedly no departmental enquiry has been held against the petitioner. The petitioner was reinstated into service on the post which he was holding at the time of dismissal i.e. the post of Constable and he was posted in the office of Superintendent of Police, Gonda. 5. While reinstating the petitioner by means of the order dated 16.06.2009 in compliance of the judgment and order dated 17.04.2009, it was provided that so far as the arrears of salary are concerned, a separate order would be passed in that regard. Since no decision was being taken, the petitioner approached this Court by means of Writ Petition no.1352 (S/S) of 2011; Abhay Nath Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others. The writ petition was disposed of with direction to the opposite party no.3 i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Gonda to consider the representation of the petitioner with regard to the arrears of salary and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. In pursuance thereof a show cause notice dated 03.07.2011 under Rule 54-A, Vol.-II, Part-II to IV of Financial Hand Book was issued and served on the petitioner, a copy of which is annexed as annexure no.2 to the writ petition. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice dated 11.07.2011. After considering the reply of the petitioner, the impugned order dated 25.08.2011 has been passed, by means of which the salary of the petitioner has been fixed but arrears of salary for the period of dismissal of the petitioner have been denied on the principle of "No Work, No Pay", a copy of which is annexed as annexure no.1 to the writ petition, which has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was dismissed from service invoking the provisions of Rule 8(2)((b) of the Rules of 1991 without recording any satisfaction and reason as to why it was not reasonable and practicable to hold the enquiry. Therefore, the said order was quashed by this Court and liberty was granted to hold a fresh enquiry. However no enquiry has been held, therefore the petitioner is entitled for arrears of salary for the period of dismissal w.e.f. 26.12.1997 to 15.06.2009 in accordance with the Financial Hand Book and even otherwise because the petitioner was ready to work but he was not allowed due to illegal orders. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Union of India Vs. Madhusudan Prasad; (2004) 1 SCC 43 , Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board Vs. C. Muddaiah; (2007) 7 SCC 689 , Kishori Lal Vs. Chairman Board of Directors, Aligarh Gramin Bank (Allahabad); 2011 (3) All LJ 73, Brajesh Kumar Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others; 2019 (1) UPLBEC 798 / 2018 (6) All WC 6481, Yadunandan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others; 2018 (1) UPLBEC 454 / 2018 (2) All WC 1594 & Prayag Narain Dubey (P.N. Pandey) Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. through Regional Manager and Another; 2018 (8) ADJ 561 . 8. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner has not discharged any Government work during the period of dismissal, therefore he is not entitled for arrears of salary for the said period. The impugned order has rightly been passed denying the arrears of salary for the period of dismissal. There is no illegality or error in the impugned order. The writ petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed with cost. 9. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 10. There is no dispute among the learned counsel for the parties, so far as the facts of the case as disclosed above are concerned. The only dispute is regarding payment of arrears of salary for the period of dismissal. Thus issue to be adjudicated upon in this case is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for the arrears of salary for the period of dismissal w.e.f. 26.12.1997 to 15.06.2009 or not on the principle of "No Work, No Pay" and if he is entitled, then to what amount. 11. Thus issue to be adjudicated upon in this case is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for the arrears of salary for the period of dismissal w.e.f. 26.12.1997 to 15.06.2009 or not on the principle of "No Work, No Pay" and if he is entitled, then to what amount. 11. The petitioner was dismissed from service by means of the order dated 26.12.1997 under Rule 8(2)(b) of Rules of 1991. The dismissal of petitioner was set-aside by this Court by means of the judgment and order dated 17.04.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.919 (S/S) of 1998; Abhay Nath Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others. The liberty for fresh enquiry was granted but admittedly no enquiry has been held. 12. Rule 54-A of the Financial Hand Book provides the conditions under which a Government Servant is entitled for the pay and allowances of the period of dismissal. Rule 54-A of Financial Hand Book is extracted here-in-below:- "54-A.(1)-Where the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set-aside by the Court of law and such Government servant is reinstated without holding any further enquiry, the period of absence from duty shall be regularized and the Government servant shall be paid pay and allowances in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (2) or (3), subject to the directions, if any, of the Court. [(2)(i) Where the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of the Government servant is set-aside by the Court solely on the ground of non-compliance with the requirements of Clause (1) or Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution, and where he is not exonerated on merits, and no further enquiry is proposed to be held, the Government servant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (7) of the Rule 54, be paid such amount (not being the whole) of the pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsory retired, as the competent authority may, as the competent authority may determine, after giving notice to the government servant of the quantum proposed and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him in that connection within such period (which in no case shall exceed sixty days from the date on which the notice has been served) as may be specified in the notice.] (ii) The period intervening between the date of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement including the period of suspension preceding dismissal removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, and the date of judgment of the court shall be regularized in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-rule (5) of Rule 54. (3) If the dismissal removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set aside by the court on the merits of the case, the period intervening between the date of dismissal removal or compulsory retirement including the period of suspension preceding such dismissal, removal, or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, and the date of reinstatement shall be treated as duty for all purpose and he shall be paid of the full pay and allowances for the period, to which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended, removed or compulsorily retired or suspended prior to such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be. (4) The payment of allowances under sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (3) shall be subject to all other conditions under which such allowances are admissible. (5) Any payment made under this Rule to a Government Servant on his reinstatement shall be subject to adjustment of the amount, if any earned by him through an employment during the period between the date of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and the date of reinstatement. (5) Any payment made under this Rule to a Government Servant on his reinstatement shall be subject to adjustment of the amount, if any earned by him through an employment during the period between the date of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and the date of reinstatement. Where the emoluments admissible under this Rule are equal to or less than those earned during the employment elsewhere, nothing shall be paid to the Government servant." 13. The aforesaid Rule 54-A(1) of Financial Hand book provides that where the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set-aside by the Court of law and such Government servant is reinstated without holding any further enquiry, the period of absence from duty shall be regularized and the Government servant shall be paid pay and allowances in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (2) or (3), subject to the directions, if any, of the Court. Sub Rule (2) of the Rule 54-A provides that where the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of the Government servant is set-aside by the Court solely on the ground of noncompliance with the requirements of Clause (1) or Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and where he is not exonerated on merits and no further enquiry is proposed to be held, the Government servant shall subject to the provisions of sub-rule (7) of the Rule 54, be paid such amount (not being the whole) of the pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsory retired, as the competent authority may determine after giving notice to the government servant of the quantum proposed and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 54 provides that the amount determined under the proviso to sub-rule (2) or under sub-rule (4), shall not be less than the subsistence allowance and other allowances admissible under Rule 53. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 54 is extracted here-in-below:- "(7) The amount determined under the proviso to sub-rule (2) or under sub-rule (4), shall not be less than the subsistence allowance and other allowances admissible under rule 53." 14. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 54 is extracted here-in-below:- "(7) The amount determined under the proviso to sub-rule (2) or under sub-rule (4), shall not be less than the subsistence allowance and other allowances admissible under rule 53." 14. The payment of allowances under sub-rule (2) or (3) shall be subject to all other conditions under which such allowances are admissible as per sub-rule (4) and any amount earned by the Government servant by any employment during the period between the date of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and reinstatement shall be adjusted as per sub-rule (5) of Rule 54-A. 15. In the present case the provisions of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 54 are attracted because the dismissal has been set-aside on account of violation of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 54 is extracted here-in-below:- "54.[(4) In cases other than those covered by sub-rule (2) [including cases where the order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service is set aside by the appellate or reviewing authority solely on the ground of non-compliance within the requirements of clause (1) or clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution and no further inquiry is proposed to be held], the Government servant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rules (6) and (7), be paid such amount (not being the whole) of the pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired or suspended prior to such dismissal removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, as the competent authority may determine, after giving notice to the Government servant of the quantum proposed and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him in that connection, within such period (which in no case shall exceed sixty days from the date on which the notice has been served) as may be specified in the notice.]" 16. The Rule 53 of Financial Handbook is extracted here-in-below:- "53. The Rule 53 of Financial Handbook is extracted here-in-below:- "53. (1) A government servant under suspension or deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of the appointing authority shall be entitled to the following payments, namely:- (a) a subsistence allowance at an amount equal to the leave salary which the government servant would have drawn if he had been on leave on half average pay or on half pay and in addition, dearness allowance, if admissible on the basis of such leave salary: Provided that where the period of suspension exceeds three months, the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order of suspension shall be competent to vary the amount of subsistence allowance for any period subsequent to the period of the first three months as follows:- (i) the amount of subsistence allowance may be increased by a suitable amount, not exceeding 50 per cent of the subsistence allowance admissible during the period of first three months, if, in the opinion of the said authority, the period of suspension has been prolonged for reasons to be recorded in writing, not directly attributable to the government servant; (ii) the amount of subsistence allowance may be reduced by a suitable amount not exceeding 50 per cent of the subsistence allowance admissible during the period of the first three months, if, in the opinion of the said authority, the period of suspension has been prolonged due to reasons, to be recorded in writing, directly attributable to the Government servant; (iii) the rate of dearness allowance will be based on the increased or, as the case may be, the decreased amount of subsistence allowance admissible under sub-clauses (i) and (ii) above. (b) Any other compensatory allowance admissible from time to time on the basis of pay of which the Government servant was in receipt on the date of suspension: Provided that the government servant shall not be entitled to the compensatory allowances unless the said authority is satisfied that the government servant continues to meet the expenditure for which they are granted. (2) No payment under sub-rule (1) shall be made unless the Government servant furnishes a certificate that he is not engaged in any other employment, business, profession or vocation: Provided that in the case of a Government servant dismissed or removed from service, who is deemed to have been placed or to continue to be under suspension from the date of such dismissal or removal and who fails to produce such a certificate for any period or periods during which he is deemed to be placed or to continue to be under suspension, he shall be entitled to the subsistence allowance and other allowances equal to the amount by which his earnings during such period or periods, as the case may be, fall short of the amount of subsistence allowance and other allowances that would otherwise be admissible to him; where the subsistence and other allowances admissible to him are equal to or less than the amount earned by him, nothing in this proviso shall apply to him. (This amendment shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from December 26, 1981)." 17. Rule 53(1)(a) provides that a Government servant under suspension shall be entitled for a subsistence allowance at an amount equal to the leave salary which the Government servant would have drawn if he had been on leave on half average pay or on half pay and in addition, dearness allowance, if admissible on the basis of such leave salary. Proviso to Rule 53(1)(a) provides that where the period of suspension exceeds three months, the subsistence allowance shall be varied and as per sub-rule (i) to the proviso the subsistence allowance may be increased by 50 percent of the subsistence allowance during the period of the first three months. As such a government servant, under suspension, is entitled to half of the salary for the first three months and where it exceeds three months for the salary upto 75 per cent for the next three months and so on. As such a government servant, under suspension, is entitled to half of the salary for the first three months and where it exceeds three months for the salary upto 75 per cent for the next three months and so on. Therefore a government servant, on reinstatement, on account of setting-aside of the dismissal on the ground of non-compliance with the requirement of Clause (1) or Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and not on merit and where no further enquiry held, shall be entitled arrears of pay and allowances for the period of dismissal which shall not be less than the subsistence allowance and other allowances admissible under rule-53. However it would be subject to adjustment of amount earned by him during the period between the date of dismissal etc. and the date of reinstatement as per sub-rule (5) of Rule 54-A. However it would be subject to direction, if any, of the Court as per Rule 54-A(1), therefore the Court may direct for payment of any amount as may be determined by it looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. 18. Sub-rule (ii) of Rule 54-A (1) provides that the period intervening the date of dismissal etc. including the period of suspension preceding it and the date of judgment shall be regularized in accordance with the provision contained in sub-rule (5) of the Rule 54. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 54 provides as to how the period of absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding his dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement can be regularized by different kind of leaves. 19. The dismissal of the petitioner, by means of the order dated 26.12.1997 under Rule 8(2)(b) of Rules of 1991, has been quashed by this Court by means of the judgment and order dated 17.04.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.919 (S/S) of 1998 on account of violation of proviso(b) to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and no enquiry has been held despite liberty granted by this Court. Proviso (b) to Article 311 (2) provides; where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonable to hold such enquiry. Proviso (b) to Article 311 (2) provides; where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonable to hold such enquiry. Therefore the case of the petitioner falls under sub-rule(2) of Rule 54-A, which provides that where the dismissal order is set-aside on the ground of non-compliance with the requirements of Clause (1) and Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and where he is not exonerated on merits and no further enquiry is proposed to be held, the Government servant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (7) of the Rule 54, be paid such pay and allowances as the competent authority may determine, had he not been dismissed from service. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 54 provides that the amount determined under the proviso to sub-rule (2) or under sub-rule (4), shall not be less than the subsistence allowance and other allowances admissible under Rule 53. 20. While reinstating the petitioner, in compliance of order passed by this Court on 17.04.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.919 (S/S) of 1998, by means of the order dated 16.06.2009, it was provided that the decision in regard to the salary of the said period shall be taken separately. However the decision was not taken, therefore the petitioner approached this court by means of the Writ Petition No.1352 (S/S) of 2011, which was disposed of by means of the order dated 11.03.2011 with direction to consider the representation of the petitioner with regard to the arrears of salary and dispose of the same by reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. Thereafter, the respondent no.3 i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Gonda gave a show cause notice dated 03.07.2011 to the petitioner under Rule 54-A of the Financial Hand Book as to why for the period of dismissal w.e.f. 26.12.1997 to 15.06.2009, the leave without pay may not be sanctioned to the petitioner. In response thereof the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation dated 11.07.2011. Thereafter the decision has been taken by means of the order dated 25.08.2011, which has been challenged in this writ petition. 21. In response thereof the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation dated 11.07.2011. Thereafter the decision has been taken by means of the order dated 25.08.2011, which has been challenged in this writ petition. 21. Perusal of the impugned order dated 25.08.2011 indicates that it has been passed without considering the grounds raised in the explanation submitted by the petitioner and by a non speaking and non reasoned order, merely stating that, since the petitioner has not discharged any Government work during the period of dismissal the arrears of salary have been denied on the principle of "No Work, No Pay". This Court is of the view that the impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law for the reasons that it was passed in violation of direction issued by this Court and the explanation submitted by the petitioner and the provisions of Rule 54-A of Financial Hand Book, under which the show cause notice was given and other relevant provisions of Financial Handbook, while passing the impugned order, under which the petitioner is entitled for arrears of salary which may be determined. 22. In the case of Union of India Vs. Madhusudan Prasad (Supra), the learned Single Judge of the High Court had held that the respondent was entitled to get salary for the period he was out of service. The said order was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court, therefore SLP was filed by the Union of India. The SLP has been dismissed noticing that the respondent was removed from the service without following the principles of natural justice and the relevant facts were considered by the learned Single Judge and Division Bench and ordered for payment of the back wages. The paragraph-6 is extracted here-in-below:- "6. The above case was concerning an employee, proceeded, who was found guilty in an enquiry but the report was not furnished to the employee and show cause notice was not served on him. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court directed appropriate order should be passed regarding the back wages. In the instant case the appellate authority directed reinstatement of the respondent and held that he was not entitled to get back wages for the period he was out of service. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court directed appropriate order should be passed regarding the back wages. In the instant case the appellate authority directed reinstatement of the respondent and held that he was not entitled to get back wages for the period he was out of service. If may be noticed that the respondent was removed from services without any enquiry and he was not even given show cause notice prior to his dismissal from service. There was fault on the part of the employer in not following the principle of natural justice. These relevant facts were considered and the learned Single Judge and also the Division Bench ordered the payment of back wages. We do not think this is a fit case where the Fundamental Rule 54 could have been invoked by the authorities. We find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed." 23. In the case of Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board Vs. C. Muddaiah (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Court, in a given case, may hold that the person was willing to work but was illegally and unlawfully not allowed to do so and direct the Authority to grant him all benefits considering 'as if he had worked' therefore it can not be contended as an absolute proposition of law that no direction of payment of consequential benefits can be granted by a Court of Law. The relevant paragraph 34 is extracted here-in-below:- "36. We are conscious and mindful that even in absence of statutory provision, normal rule is 'no work no pay'. In appropriate cases, however, a Court of Law may, nay must, take into account all the facts in their entirety and pass an appropriate order in consonance with law. The Court, in a given case, may hold that 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'. The Court, in a given case, may hold that 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'. It, therefore, cannot be contended as an absolute proposition of law that no direction of payment of consequential benefits can be granted by a Court of Law and if such directions are issued by a Court, the Authority can ignore them even if they had been finally confirmed by the Apex Court of the country (as has been done in the present case). The bald contention of the appellant-Board, therefore, has no substance and must be rejected." 24. A coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Kishori Lal Vs. Chairman Board of Directors, Aligarh Gramin Bank (Allahabad) (Supra), has held that the principle of "No Work, No Pay" can not be applied ignoring the fact that work has not been performed by employee concerned not on account of himself but for the circumstances created by employer and if applied would amount to confer a premium upon employer of a fault of his own and 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 and held the petitioner is entitled for consequential benefits with cost. The relevant paragraphs 59 to 64 are extracted here-in-below:- "59. Now coming to another important aspect about relief. It is not the case of respondents that petitioner was gainfully employed elsewhere during the period he was out of job. On the contrary, as a result of illegal order of dismissal, petitioner and his entire family must have suffered a social stigma as also financial hardships. It is quite conceivable that this ignominy is faced by the entire family of petitioner. No amount of money can compensate this social humiliation, illegal torture an out classed attribute of neighbour and other difficulties. It must have been faced by petitioner and his entire family throughout. An attempt to provide consequential benefits to petitioner by this Court is only a meager compensation for huge loss, which basically cannot be compensated in terms of money. No amount of money can compensate this social humiliation, illegal torture an out classed attribute of neighbour and other difficulties. It must have been faced by petitioner and his entire family throughout. An attempt to provide consequential benefits to petitioner by this Court is only a meager compensation for huge loss, which basically cannot be compensated in terms of money. The departmental authorities, in fact must be much more careful and vigilant when they initiate disciplinary proceedings against an employee concerned on certain charges so that effective procedural requirement is observed in words and spirit. They must also ensure that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed as that affects not only individual bread earner but the entire family. This Court can take judicial cognizance of the fact that higher rank officials and employees, if face a small delay in payment of salary, become restless and even resort to ob serve strike etc. That being so the severest punishment of dismissal compel the employee and his entire family to stand in a situation of starvation and also denuded the other facilities like health, education, clothing etc, which virtually, if not a death in terms of medical precision, something near to it. Normally the employers, to wriggle out such circumstances, try to invoke principle of ‘No work No Pay’ ignoring the fact that work has not been performed by employee concerned not on account of himself but for the circumstances created by employer. Such a principle in a case like this, if applied would amount to confer a premium upon employer 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. It is always open to employer concerned to cover up loss, which it may sustain towards making of payment to such an employee by recovering such amount from those officials who defied statutory requirement as also the procedure and pass illegal order. Instead of penalizing a poor employee, who has no option but not to render service to employer pursuant to illegal order passed by employer the accountability should be shouldered by the responsible officer/authority. 60. Moreover the concept of gainful employment would be attracted provided employment is easily available. Instead of penalizing a poor employee, who has no option but not to render service to employer pursuant to illegal order passed by employer the accountability should be shouldered by the responsible officer/authority. 60. Moreover the concept of gainful employment would be attracted provided employment is easily available. The Court cannot shut its eyes of extraordinary unemployment prevailing in the country. The people having high qualifications are searching menial employment having limited employment avenues. In such circumstances to suggest that a dismissed employees could have got a gainful employment is nothing but a day dreaming. 61. This aspect can be looked into from another different angle. In these days of extraordinary unemployment it is inconceivable to think that dismissed or removed employee may get easily an alternative employment. Merely because he has been able to survive all through, it cannot be conceived that he was in gainful employment during all this periods. We do not know whether he survived at the charity or support extended by his relatives, friends, neighbour or by selling his household goods or spending his savings or losing ornaments of his wife or that he survived by incurring debt in the hope of getting success one day in the case challenging order of punishment and then to discharge debt liability. 62. It would not be proper on the part of this Court into enter in this arena of wild goose chase. Only this much is sufficient that he was not unwilling to work but the employer having created a situation where he was compelled not to work, hence ought not be punished despite of winning the case by denying arrears of salary. 63. It is also well known that whenever an order of dismissal or removal is challenged, normally Courts do not grant interim orders and the reason behind is that it amounts to grant of final relief. That being so, in the end when incumbent is successful in demonstrating that order is illegal, if he is denied salary on the ground that he did not work for which judiciary is also responsible, it would be condemning a indefansable litigant for no fault of his own and also for certain reasons which are wholly beyond his control. If this would not be a travesty of justice then what else can be. 64. If this would not be a travesty of justice then what else can be. 64. It is in these facts and circumstances and considering the various aspects of the matter, 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 benefit of continuity of service 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." 25. A coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Brajesh Kumar Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others (Supra), has held that The principle of 'no work no pay' stands attracted in a situation where an employee has refused to discharge duties of his own volition and without any restraint of the employer. It primarily applies to a situation where the employee consciously and voluntarily fails or refuses to discharge duties and the termination of employment is an act affected solely by the employer and in this situation it can not be said that the employee has failed to discharge duties without justifiable cause. The relevant paragraph-11 is extracted here-in- below:- "11. The principle that needs recognition and reiteration is that the principle of 'no work no pay' cannot have an ipso facto or automatic application to a case of termination. Once the order of termination comes to be set aside by a Court or Tribunal, it is incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to take an informed decision with respect to the manner in which the period during which the order of termination operated would be liable to be treated. The decision to deprive an employee of emoluments and other benefits cannot be arrived at solely on the application of the principle of "no work no pay". The decision to deprive an employee of emoluments and other benefits cannot be arrived at solely on the application of the principle of "no work no pay". While arriving at a decision in this respect, it would be incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to consider various factors such as the length of the period during which the order of termination operated, whether the enquiry proceedings were delayed on account of non cooperation of the employee concerned, the nature of the misconduct which is ultimately found to be proved, the severity of the punishment which comes to be imposed upon the original order of termination being modified or the grounds which led to the order of termination or punishment being set aside. The Disciplinary Authority would be acting within its jurisdiction in evaluating whether the punishment order was set aside on a technicality, an infraction of principles of fair play or on merits. There would thus have to be a holistic and comprehensive consideration of the above and other germane factors which would guide the ultimate decision that the Disciplinary Authority takes in this regard." 26. Similar view has been taken by this Court, in the cases of Yadunandan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others (Supra) and Prayag Narain Dubey (P.N. Pandey) Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. through Regional Manager and Another (Supra). 27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment, in the case of Pradeep S/o Rajkumar Jain Vs. Similar view has been taken by this Court, in the cases of Yadunandan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others (Supra) and Prayag Narain Dubey (P.N. Pandey) Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. through Regional Manager and Another (Supra). 27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment, in the case of Pradeep S/o Rajkumar Jain Vs. Manganese Ore (India) Limited and Others; (2022) 3 SCC 683 , by means of the judgment and order dated 10.12.2021, relying on leading case on the issue of "No Work, No Pay" in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) & Others.; (2013) 10 SCC 324 and considering many other judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held that it is, undoubtedly, true when the question arises as to whether the backwages is to be given and as to what is to be the extent of backwages, these are matters which will depend on the facts of the case as noted in Deepali Gundu Surwase and in a case where it is found that the employee was not at all at fault and yet, he is visited with illegal termination or termination is actually activised by malice, it may be unfair to deny him the fruits of the employment which he would have enjoyed but for the illegal / malafide termination. It has further held that the effort of the Court must be to then to restore the status quo in the manner which is appropriate in the facts of each case. The relevant paragraph 12 of the judgment is extracted here-in-below:- "12. It is, undoubtedly, true when the question arises as to whether the backwages is to be given and as to what is to be the extent of backwages, these are matters which will depend on the facts of the case as noted in Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra). In a case where it is found that the employee was not at all at fault and yet, he was visited with illegal termination or termination which is actually activised by malice, it may be unfair to deny him the fruits of the employment which he would have enjoyed but for the illegal / malafide termination. The effort of the Court must be to then to restore the status quo in the manner which is appropriate in the facts of each case. The effort of the Court must be to then to restore the status quo in the manner which is appropriate in the facts of each case. The nature of the charges, the exact reason for the termination as evaluated and, of course, the question as to whether the employee was gainfully employed would be matters which will enter into the consideration by the Court." 28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) & Ors; (2013) 10 SCC 324 , after considering the two earlier three judges benches of the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded as follows:- “38. The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are: 38.1. In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule. 38.2. The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while deciding the issue of back wages, the adjudicating authority or the court may take into consideration the length of service of the employee/workman, the nature of misconduct, if any, found proved against the employee/workman, the financial condition of the employer and similar other factors. 38.3. Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then it has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman was gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she was drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was not employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments. 38.4. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was not employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments. 38.4. The cases in which the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal exercises power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and finds that even though the enquiry held against the employee/workman is consistent with the rules of natural justice and / or certified standing orders, if any, but holds that the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct found proved, then it will have the discretion not to award full back wages. However, if the Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal finds that the employee or workman is not at all guilty of any misconduct or that the employer had foisted a false charge, then there will be ample justification for award of full back wages. 38.5.) The cases in which the competent Court or Tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman, then the concerned Court or Tribunal will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such cases, the superior Courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc., merely because there is a possibility of forming a different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer’s obligation to pay the same. The Courts must always be kept in view that in the cases of wrongful / illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and sufferer is the employee/workman and there is no justification to give premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in the form of full back wages. 38.6. In a number of cases, the superior Courts have interfered with the award of the primary adjudicatory authority on the premise that finalization of litigation has taken long time ignoring that in majority of cases the parties are not responsible for such delays. 38.6. In a number of cases, the superior Courts have interfered with the award of the primary adjudicatory authority on the premise that finalization of litigation has taken long time ignoring that in majority of cases the parties are not responsible for such delays. Lack of infrastructure and manpower is the principal cause for delay in the disposal of cases. For this the litigants cannot be blamed or penalised. It would amount to grave injustice to an employee or workman if he is denied back wages simply because there is long lapse of time between the termination of his service and finality given to the order of reinstatement. The Courts should bear in mind that in most of these cases, the employer is in an advantageous position vis-à-vis the employee or workman. He can avail the services of best legal brain for prolonging the agony of the sufferer, i.e., the employee or workman, who can ill afford the luxury of spending money on a lawyer with certain amount of fame. Therefore, in such cases it would be prudent to adopt the course suggested in Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (supra). 38.7. The observation made in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal (supra) that on reinstatement the employee/workman cannot claim continuity of service as of right is contrary to the ratio of the judgments of three Judge Benches referred to hereinabove and cannot be treated as good law. This part of the judgment is also against the very concept of reinstatement of an employee/workman. 29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in another recent judgment and order dated 23.02.2022, in the case of Gowramma C (Dead) By LR's Vs. Manager (Personnel) Hindustan Aeronautical Limited and Another; 2022 SCC Online SC 310 (Civil Appeal Nos.1575-1576 of 2022), considering the aforesaid case of Deepali Gundu Surwase (Supra) has held that if the employee is not at all at fault and she was kept out of work by reasons of the decision taken by the employer, then to deny the fruits of her being vindicated at the end of the day would be unfair to the employee and in such circumstances, no doubt, the question relating to alternative employment that the employee may have resorted to, becomes relevant. The relevant paragraph-13 is extracted here-in-below:- "13. The relevant paragraph-13 is extracted here-in-below:- "13. The most important question is whether the employee is at fault in any manner. If the employee is not at all at fault and she was kept out of work by reasons of the decision taken by the employer, then to deny the fruits of her being vindicated at the end of the day would be unfair to the employee. In such circumstances, no doubt, the question relating to alternative employment that the employee may have resorted to, becomes relevant. There is also the aspect of discretion which is exercised by the Court keeping in view the facts of each case. As we have already noticed, this is a case where apart from the charge of the employee having produced false caste certificate, there is no other charge. Therefore, we would think that interests of justice, in the facts of this, would be subserved, if we enhance the back wages from 50% to 75% of the full back wages, which she was otherwise entitled. The appeals are partly allowed. The impugned judgments will stand modified and the respondents shall calculate the amount which would be equivalent to 75% of the back wages and disburse the amount remaining to be paid under this judgment within a period of six weeks from today to the additional appellants." 30. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the petitioner was dismissed from service by means of the order dated 26.12.1997 under Rule 8(2) (b) of Rules of 1991 which was set-aside by means of the judgment and order dated 17.04.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.919 (S/S) of 1998 on account of violation of Article 311(2)(b) of Constitution of India with a liberty for fresh enquiry, but admittedly no fresh enquiry has been held. The impugned order in regard to the payment of arrears of salary for the period of dismissal has been passed without considering the detailed explanation dated 11.07.2011 submitted by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice dated 03.07.2011 issued under Rule 54-A of the Financial Handbook. The impugned order in regard to the payment of arrears of salary for the period of dismissal has been passed without considering the detailed explanation dated 11.07.2011 submitted by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice dated 03.07.2011 issued under Rule 54-A of the Financial Handbook. The impugned order has been passed merely stating that the petitioner is not entitled for any arrears of salary on the principles of 'No Work, No Pay' as he has not discharged any Government work during period of dismissal, therefore the impugned order has been passed not only in violation of the direction issued by this Court for passing a reasoned and speaking order in Writ Petition No.1352 (S/S) of 2011 but without considering and in violation of Rule 54-A and other relevant provisions of Financial Hand Book also under which the petitioner is entitled for arrears of salary, therefore this Court is of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set-aside to the extent it denies the arrears of salary of the period of dismissal w.e.f. 26.12.1997 to 15.06.2009 and in view of the aforesaid discussion it is held that the petitioner is entitled to arrears of salary for the aforesaid period of absence on account of dismissal of petitioner, which has been quashed and no further enquiry has been held. 31. In view of above and considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to determine the amount of arrears of salary for the period of absence instead of directing to reconsider the matter as the matter is old. Since the petitioner has not discharged the Government work during the period w.e.f. 26.12.1997 to 15.06.2009 the petitioner is entitled for 75% of the salary as arrears of salary for the period w.e.f 26.12.1997 to 15.06.2009 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of payment. 32. With the aforesaid observations and directions the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.