JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing Memo No. 5453 dated 4.10.2023 as contained in Annexure-10, issued by respondent No. 4, whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of the arrears of salary from 7.3.2013 till the date of retirement i.e. on 31.3.2019 has been rejected on the ground of 'no work no pay' in terms of Rule 58(Ka) of the Jharkhand Service Code . Further a prayer has been made to direct the respondents to pay the salary of the aforesaid period i.e. 7.3.2013 to 31.3.2019, which has not been paid till date. 2. The admitted facts is that the petitioner was a clerk in the office of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh. A vigilance case being Vigilance Case No. 17/1994 was registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was put under suspension. The petitioner was dismissed from service vide letter dated 23.6.1998 on 30.6.2001. He preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal, which was dismissed. Thereafter, a writ petition being WPS No. 72 of 2003 challenging the order of punishment, including the appellate order, was filed before this Court. A Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 27.2.2013 allowed the writ petition by quashing the impugned orders dated 23.6.1998 and 30.6.2001 which were the order of punishment and the appellate order and directed the respondents to pay 50% of the back wages to the petitioner till the date of his reinstatement in service. The petitioner thereafter gave his joining on 7.3.2013 but was not allowed to join. The Department preferred a Letters Patent Appeal being LPA No. 222/2014, which was dismissed for default on 31.10.2018. A contempt petition being Cont. Case (Civil) No. 40 of 2019 was filed, in which, an order was passed on 18.5.2019 directing the respondent-contemnors to comply the order dated 27.2.2013 within four weeks. In the meantime, the petitioner superannuated on 31.3.2019 3. Vide order dated 7.7.2020 in compliance of the orders of this Court passed in writ petition as well as contempt petition, the respondents notionally accepted the joining of the petitioner with effect from 7.3.2013, but the petitioner's salary from 7.3.2013 till his superannuation i.e. 31.3.2019 was not paid. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ being WPS No. 1527 of 2021 which was disposed of on 11.5.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ being WPS No. 1527 of 2021 which was disposed of on 11.5.2023. The petitioner made his representation pursuant to the order passed by this Court in WPS 1527/2021, but his claim for arrears of salary same was rejected by the impugned order. 4. The defence of the State is that since the petitioner has not actually joined his service after reinstatement and after the order passed by this Court, he is not entitled to get any salary in terms of Rule 58(a) of the Jharkhand Service Code . 5. From the admitted facts, stated herein above, I find that the petitioner was reinstated by the order of this Court after his punishment order was set aside. He gave his joining on 7.3.2013, but he was admittedly not allowed to join. A Letters patent Appeal was filed by the State against the reinstatement order of the petitioner, which ultimately stood dismissed. Thus the order of reinstatement of the petitioner attained finality. Inspite of that, the petitioner was never allowed to join and in fact, he had to file a contempt petition. The respondents ultimately accepted the joining of the petitioner notionally though after his superannuation. Thus the act on the part of the respondents suggests that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner, rather it was the respondents who did not allow him to join. 6. The respondents have taken shelter of Rule 58(a) of the Jharkhand Service Code . Rule 58(a) of the Jharkhand Service Code reads as under:- “58 (a) Subject to any exceptions specifically made in these rules and to the provisions of Clause (b) of this Rule, a Government servant shall begin to draw the pay and allowances attached to his tenure of a post with effect from the date on which he assumes the duties of that post, and shall cease to draw them as soon as he ceases to discharge those duties.” 7. From careful perusal of the aforesaid Rule and the facts narrated above, I find that the instant case cannot be said to be covered under Rule 58(a) of the Jharkhand Service Code . The facts of this case suggest that the respondents inspite of the order of reinstatement of the petitioner did not allow him to resume his duty within the date of his superannuation. The facts of this case suggest that the respondents inspite of the order of reinstatement of the petitioner did not allow him to resume his duty within the date of his superannuation. Once the dismissal order was set aside by the Writ Court by natural consequence the petitioner would be deemed to be in service. There was no justification on the part of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to join. Mere filing or pendency of a Letters Patent Appeal challenging the order of reinstatement is not at all a ground to deprive the petitioner from the fruits of the order, which is in his favour. If only there is a stay operating by the Higher Court or of a Larger Bench strength, then only the reinstatement could have been kept in abeyance, otherwise not. It was the duty of the respondents to reinstate the petitioner, which they deliberately did not. Further the State cannot take any benefit of their own wrong, which they themselves have committed. There was no fault on the part of the petitioner in the instant case. If there was any laches or fault, it was the deliberate action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to work. On this background, the General Rule, which is Rule 58(a) of the Jharkhand Service Code is not applicable in this case. This is a case, on facts, an exception can be carved out of Rule 58(a) of the Jharkhand Service Code . Be it noted that 50% of the back wages has already been paid to the petitioner till the judgment of his reinstatement. 8. Considering what has been held above, the impugned order as contained in Memo No.5453 dated 4.10.2023 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) is set aside . The respondents are directed to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner i.e. from 7.3.2013 till the date of his retirement i.e. 31.3.2019 within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed