ANIL DEV SINGH,J. - (1.) The appellant while serving as U.D.C. in the respondent Department submitted an application dated 01.06.1999 seeking voluntary retirement with the condition that the same be effective from 31st October, 1999. The second respondent accepted the application on 7th of August, 1999. It seems that the appellant was having second thoughts in the matter and on ?th September, 1999 he withdrew his application for voluntary retirement. The appellant by the same application prayed for revocation of the acceptance of his offer of voluntary retirement ostensibly on the ground that the same was accepted prior to 31st October, 1999, the date from which his voluntary retirement was to be effective and the appellant could withdraw this offer before that date. The application did not have the desired effect and the same was rejected vide order of the respondent dated 26th October, 1999.
(2.) Aggrieved by the orders passed by the respondent, the appellant filed the writ petition in this Court, being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4441/1999. The learned Single judge by the impugned order allowed the petition and quashed the orders dated 7th October, 1999 and 26th October, 1999 passed by the respondents. The learned Single judge, however, held that the appellant shall not be entitled to back wages but he shall get notional benefits of the quashing of the acceptance of the application for voluntary retirement.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is entitled to receive full back wages since the acceptance of his application for voluntary retirement has been quashed by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand submitted that since the appellant did not work during the intervening period, he was not entitled for back wages. He based his submission on the principle of 'no work no pay.;