ORDER : Subodh Abhyankar, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:- “It is, therefore, prayed that the petition be allowed with cost and an appropriate writ, order or direction be issued for quashing that part of the impugned order dated 08/02/2013 (Annexure P/6) by which the respondents had denied the back wages to the petitioner w.e.f. 16/12/1993 to 28/10/2012 and has further directed that this period shall not be counted as qualifying service for any purpose. That the respondents be further directed to pay back wages to the petitioner e.w.f. 16/12/1993 and this period be counted towards the payment of pension etc. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 08/02/2013, whereby the respondent No.4 Commandant, 1 st Battalion, CRPF has regularized the period of service of the petitioner from 06/12/1993 to 20/10/2012 on the principle of “No Work No Pay” and has directed that this period shall not be counted as qualifying for any purposes. 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was posted as Constable in the CRPF in the year 1975 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Lance-naik. The case of the petitioner is that on 19/08/1993, he took a leave from 19/08/1993 to 23/08/1993, but did not report on duty, hence, on 08/10/1993, an arrest warrant was issued against him and he was also prosecuted for his unauthorized absence, in which, he was convicted on 04/11/1993, under Section 10 (N) of C.R.P.F. Act, 1955 and was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court, and consequently, he was dismissed from service on 01/12/1993. Against the order of conviction, the petitioner also preferred Criminal Appeal No.114/2007 before the Sessions Court, Neemuch, who vide its order dated 28/05/2010, set aside the order of conviction by extending the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders’ Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1958’) to the petitioner. The aforesaid order was also challenged by the petitioner before this Court in Criminal Revision No.1119/2010, however, the same was dismissed on 05/05/2011. The aforesaid order was also challenged by the petitioner before this Court in Criminal Revision No.1119/2010, however, the same was dismissed on 05/05/2011. Thereafter, an application was also filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for modification of the order dated 05/05/2011 and the same was modified by extending the benefit of the Act of 1958 to the petitioner. 4. Pursuant to the order dated 05/05/2011, on 26/09/2011, the petitioner also filed an appeal before the respondents for his reinstatement in service along with all consequential benefits, and on 04/10/2012, the respondent No.3 Deputy Inspector Genera, C.R.P.F., Neemuch passed the order reinstating the petitioner in service w.e.f. 29/10/2012. After the aforesaid order of reinstatement, another order dated 08/02/2013 was passed by respondent No.4 regularizing the service of the petitioner, however, with a condition that on the principle of “No Work No Pay”, the period from 16/12/1993 to 20/08/2012 shall not be counted as qualifying service for any other purposes as the Court verdict has only partially allow revision petition keeping the conviction of the petitioner intact. Being aggrieved, the present petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders’ Act, 1958 which provides for removal of disqualification attaching to conviction, and has submitted that throughout the period, even after his conviction, the petitioner was available to serve the respondents, however, his services were not utilized by them, for which the petitioner cannot be punished, and has also relied upon para 3 of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Shobha Ram Raturi vs. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. and another reported as (2016) 16 SCC 663 Counsel has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.559/2012 dated 14/03/2016 in which also, this Court, while relying upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board vs. C. Muddaiah reported in AIR 2007 SC 3100 , has held that in a given case, when the person was willing to work but was not allowed to do so illegally and unlawfully, the consequential benefits should be allowed to be given to such an employee. 6. 6. On the other hand, the prayer is vehemently opposed the learned counsel for the respondents, and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out. A reply to the petition has also been filed and it is submitted that the petitioner has remained absent unauthorisedly for a period of 46 days and has been awarded punishment of dismissal from service on 15/12/1993. And, although he has been reinstated in service w.e.f. 29/10/2012, but as per Rule 54(1)(6) of the FUNDAMENTAL RULES , the intervening period w.e.f. 16/12/1993 to 28/10/2012, has been regularized on the principle of ‘No Work No Pay” and hence, the period cannot be counted as qualifying service as even this Court has only partly allowed the revision petition of the petitioner, keeping his conviction intact. 7. It is also submitted that during the entire period of litigation, there was no delay which can be attributed to the respondents and it is not a case where the petitioner ever after his conviction could have been kept in service by the respondents. Thus, it is submitted that the petition be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed on record. 9. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the documents on record, this Court finds that so far as the relief granted to an accused under the Act of 1958 is concerned, the same shall be governed Section 12 of the same which reads as under :- “12. Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of section 3 or section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person who, after his release under section 4, is subsequently sentenced for the original offence.” 10. A perusal of the aforesaid provision would reveal that a person, who has been given the benefit of Section 3 and 4, shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attached to the conviction. A perusal of the aforesaid provision would reveal that a person, who has been given the benefit of Section 3 and 4, shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attached to the conviction. This court is of the considered opinion that disqualification attached to the conviction of the petitioner was removal from service, which has now been done away with and he is reinstated, and thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not been given the benefit of Section 3 and 4 of the Act of 1958. However, in the considered opinion of this Court, even after availing the benefit of the Act of 1958, the petitioner would still not be entitled to claim the back wages for the aforesaid long period of time from 16/12/1993 to 28/10/2012, as admittedly, he has not worked for the said period, and for which, the respondents cannot be held liable at the cost of the public exchequer. 11. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any force in the petition so far as it relates to the claim of back wages for the period from 04/11/1993 to 04/10/2012 during which his status remained as convicted. However, for the subsequent period, the petitioner shall be entitled to the back wages also as it can be presumed that the petitioner was available to serve after 04/10/2012. Apart from that, it is also directed that the aforesaid period from 04/11/1993 to 04/10/2012 shall be counted towards calculating the terminal benefits of the petitioner. 12. So far as the decision relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner in the case of Shobha Ram Raturi (Supra) is concerned, the same is distinguishable as in the said case, the writ Court quashed the order of premature retirement holding that the petitioner would be treated to be in continuous service with all consequential benefits, however, it was held that since the petitioner has not worked on the post, maxim of ‘No Work No Pay’ shall apply. and the consequential benefits shall only be determined towards terminal benefits, to which the Supreme Court held that once the order of premature retirement was set aside, it would mean that the petitioner was available to work for the remaining period of his service and in such circumstances, the benefit of wages cannot be denied to him on the principle of ‘No Work No Pay, thus, it was not a case of grant of benefit of the Act of 1958, as apparently, it is not a case where the petitioner was available to serve with the CRPF even after his conviction by the trial Court on 04/11/1993, till the order was finally passed by this Court on 09/09/2011, in M.Cr.C. No.6293/2011, where this Court passed the following order:- “Since the facts of the case are identical in nature, therefore, keeping in view order passed by this Court in Cr.R. No.668/99 and also keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Channi (Supra) petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the order dated 05/05/11 passed in Cr.R. No.1119/10 is modified by extending the benefit of probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner. Let a copy of the order be placed in the record of Cr.R. No.1119/19.” 13. Thus, this Court had clearly opined that the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act shall be available to the petitioner, and thereafter the petitioner’s departmental appeal dated 26/09/2011 was also allowed by the respondents on 04/10/2012, reinstating the petitioner in service w.e.f. 29/10/2012. 14. Accordingly, the petition stands partly allowed to the extent as aforesaid. 15. The writ petition is hereby disposed of.