JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. Heard Mr. Shantam Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents. 2. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal, which is filed against an order dated 13.03.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 7093 of 2017, is as to whether the learned Single Judge has committed an error of law in not granting back-wages while setting aside the order of compulsory retirement dated 05.09.2017, though, observing that benefits shall be given to the petitioner by giving him notional benefits and fixation. 3. No appeal has been preferred by the State challenging setting aside of the order of compulsory retirement. 4. The learned Single Judge recorded a finding that in the past 9 years, Annual Confidential Report (ACR) reflected that the petitioner was granted six “Very Good” and three “Good”, which itself indicated that the petitioner was a good worker. The petitioner, at no point of time, was subjected to any departmental enquiry. 5. The reason assigned for passing the order for compulsory retirement was ‘public interest’. No material could be placed by the State in support of the order of compulsory retirement. 6. Mr. Awasthi submits that no reasons have been assigned by the learned Single Judge as to why the petitioner would not be entitled for back-wages. He has cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shobha Ram Raturi v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited & Others passed in Civil Appeal No. 11325 of 2011, which was also a case of compulsory retirement, to contend that the petitioner is entitled to back-wages. In the said case, the view taken by the High Court that the principle of “no work, no pay” shall apply was rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it was held that the fault lies with the respondents in not having utilized the services of the appellant for the period from 01.01.2003 to 31.12.2005. It was further observed that having restrained the petitioner from rendering his services with effect from 01.01.2003 and 31.12.2005, the respondents cannot be allowed to press the self serving plea of denying him wages for the period in question, on the plea of the principle of “no work no pay”. 7. Mr. It was further observed that having restrained the petitioner from rendering his services with effect from 01.01.2003 and 31.12.2005, the respondents cannot be allowed to press the self serving plea of denying him wages for the period in question, on the plea of the principle of “no work no pay”. 7. Mr. Pradhan has cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur v. Phool Chand (Dead) Through Legal Representatives, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 299 . The facts of the aforesaid case, in short, are that the appellant had dismissed the employee after holding departmental enquiry on the ground of dereliction of duties on various occasions and the charge against the deceased workman regarding his continuous absence from the work was proved. The Labour Court converted the punishment of removal from service to that of “stoppage/forfeit of four annual grade increments without cumulative effect” and directed the reinstatement of the deceased workman in service with award of full back-wages for the period of 13 years (16.11.1983 to 24.02.1996). The challenge made thereto, was negated by the High Court. 8. In the context of the above factual matrix, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that back-wages could not be awarded by the Court as of right to the workman consequent upon setting aside of his dismissal/termination order and that the employee had to plead and prove with the aid of evidence that after his dismissal from service, he was not gainfully employed anywhere and had no earning to maintain himself or/and his family. 9. In the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED.) & Others, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraphs 38.1 and 38.5 stated as under: “38.1. In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule. 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 victimising the employee or workman, then the court or tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment 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 victimising the employee or workman, then the court or tribunal concerned 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 keep in view that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the employee/workman and there is no justification to give a 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.” 10. Present is a case where the appellant was compulsory retired arbitrarily without there being any semblance of material on record for passing such an order. The appellant was unjustifiably prevented by the employer from rendering his service and such action amounts to victimisation of an employee. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shobha Ram Raturi (supra) and Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra), we are of the opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge so far as it relates to denial of backwages, requires interference. 12. Accordingly, it is directed that the appellant shall be paid his pay and allowances from the period during which he was kept out of service. The order of the learned Single Judge is modified to that extent. 13. The writ appeal is allowed. No cost.