P.S. Patwalia, J. - (1.) A perusal of the facts as recorded in the judgments of the Courts below show that the plaintiff was dismissed from service on 05.12.1989. He filed a civil suit challenging his dismissal. The same was dismissed. The first appeal and the RSA were also dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which the following order was passed : "We have heard the learned counsel for the parties it is stated by R.S. Sodhi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that quantum of punishment would be reconsidered by appropriate authority, but we make clear that the appellant will not be thrown out of service. The appeal is disposed of, no order as to costs." As per the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the order of dismissal was set aside and on 05.04.1999, the plaintiff rejoined his duties. Thereafter, in terms of the order made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a fresh order of penalty was passed on 27.01.2000 by which one increment of the petitioner was stopped without cumulative effect. However, it was ordered therein that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any salary for the period he remained out of service. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff claiming salary for the period when he remained out of service on account of being dismissed on 05.12.1989 upto 05.04.1999 when he was reinstated as a result of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(2.) Both the Courts below have rejected the claim of the appellant. It has been found that the plaintiff could not discharge his duties on account of the fact that the Civil Court had upheld the order of dismissal. Therefore, he was not entitled to back wages for the period when he remained out of service. Furthermore, principle of "No work no pay" was applied.
(3.) I find no reason to interfere in the judgments of the Courts below.;