IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5820 of 2011 Date of Decision: September 26, 2011 Kitab Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Kunal Chhoker, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has joined as a Beldar in September, 1986 with Haryana Minor Irrigation and Tubewells Corporation Ltd. His services were terminated in the year 1988. The petitioner served a demand notice claiming his reinstatement with full back wages. The demand notice was served on 28.11.1998. The petitioner then approached Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat and award was passed in his favour on 19.12.2002. Respondents then moved this court for setting-aside the ex-parte award, which was dismissed. This court also dismissed the writ petition, against which Special Leave Petition was also declined. The petitioner accordingly joined duty on 19.6.2006. He was retrenched thereafter. Subsequently, the decision was taken to appoint/adjust the employees of the Boards/Corporation/Public Sector Undertakings etc. The petitioner did not receive any response for his reinstatement. However, the petitioner approached this court and this court directed the respondents to decide his representation. Pursuant thereto, the Civil Writ Petition No.5820 of 2011 :2: petitioner's claim was rejected. The petitioner again approached this court. His case was then considered for re-employment and he was appointed as a Peon in the Haryana Irrigation Department on 26.11.2008. The petitioner now claims pay for the period from 20.6.2006 to 26.11.2008 ,i.e., for 2-1/2 years. Since the petitioner had remained as a retrenched employee and has been reinstated on the basis of a policy, the principle of “no work no pay” will apply and the petitioner cannot be held entitled to pay for the period he has remained out of service. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. September 26, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE