THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 22826 OF 2000 Dated: 04.02.2011 Between: K.Ramchander ..... Petitioner AND Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and others .....Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 22826 OF 2000 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 04.04.2000 to the extent of treating the period from 26.05.1999 to 20.07.1999 as not on duty for the purpose of wages, leave and increments, is arbitrary and illegal. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner, who was working at the relevant time as Mechanic Grade-I, was removed from service by order dated 26.05.1999 passed by the 3rd respondent herein on the ground that he had made spurious complaint in the name of one K.Ravinder, Ex-driver of KR-II Depot. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The said appeal was disposed of by order dated 08.07.1999 directing reinstatement of the petitioner. However, it was ordered that the period from the date of his removal to the date of reporting duties should be treated as not on duty. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.16871 of 1999 challenging the above said proceedings. By order dated 20.01.2000 the said writ petition was allowed by this Court thereby quashing the whole proceedings initiated against the petitioner including the order of removal as well as the order passed by the appellate authority and further holding that the petitioner was entitled for all the consequential benefits. Pursuant thereto, the impugned proceedings dated 04.04.2000 came to be issued directing reinstatement of the petitioner with effect from 26.05.1999. However, strangely it was ordered that the intervening period from 26.05.1999 to 20.07.1999 should be treated as not on duty for the purpose of wages, leave and increments as per the principle ‘no work no pay’ since the petitioner had not performed the duties physically during that time. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. Having regard to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.16871 of 1999, the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner are deemed to have been nullified and consequently, the respondents are bound to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. However, the impugned order is sought to be justified by the Corporation relying upon the observations made by this Court in Contempt Case No.390 of 2000. The said Contempt Case No.390 of 2000 was filed by the petitioner herein alleging that the proceedings impugned in this Writ Petition were in violation of the order passed in Writ Petition No.16871 of 1999. While dismissing the said contempt case, it was observed by this Court as under: “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this portion of the proceedings dt. 4.4.2000 is contrary to the directions of this Court. I express my inability to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This court never directed the respondent-Corporation to pay any wage to the petitioner, as such, even if he was not on duty. Suffice it to observe that the respondent corporation had not acted in any deliberate and willful manner contravening or disobeying the directions of this Court.” Having carefully gone through the above said order, I am of the opinion that the conclusion of this Court that the respondents had not acted in deliberate and willful contravention of the directions issued in Writ Petition No.16871 of 1999 does not amount to upholding the legality and validity of the order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 04.04.2000. Hence it is necessary for this Court now to consider independently the correctness of the order impugned dated 4.4.2000 in this writ petition. As noticed above, this Court by order dated 20.01.2000 while allowing W.P.No.16871 of 1999 had quashed the whole proceedings initiated against the petitioner including the order of removal as well as the order passed by the appellate authority. It was also made clear by this Court that the petitioner was entitled for all the consequential benefits. Hence the petitioner is entitled to wages as well as other benefits for the entire period irrespective of the fact whether he had actually performed the duties or not. The learned counsel for the respondents-Corporation has also placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.P.State Road Transport Corporation and others vs. Abdul Kareem[1], A.P.SRTC and another vs. S.Narsagoud[2] and L.Laxma Reddy vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corportion and others[3], in support of his contention that the petitioner was not entitled for the wages since he did not perform the duties during the period from 26.05.1999 to 20.07.1999. There can be no dispute about the ratio laid down by the appex Court on the principle ‘no work no pay’. However, this is a case where the petitioner was restrained from discharging his duties by the Corporation itself on the ground that he was removed from service. Since the said order of removal itself was held to be illegal by this Court and was quashed in toto, it is not open to the respondents to contend that the petitioner is not entitled to the salaries merely on the ground that he did not perform the duties. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date : 04.02.2011 Ivd [1] (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 36 [2] (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 212 [3] (2007) 13 Supreme Court Cases 415