CWP No. 548 of 2002. 16.09.2008 Present: Mr. Rajnish Manikatla, Advocate, vice Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents. The petitioner has assailed the judgment of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 17th September, 2001 whereby the Tribunal while passing the judgment in favour of the petitioner directed the State Government to reengage him as a Trained Graduate Teacher (Arts) for which post he had been selected by the Selection Board in the meeting held on June 24, 1982. The petitioner has approached this Court against the said judgment because he was not awarded any monetary benefits for the period of the crime allegedly committed by him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code wherein he was taken into judicial custody till the pronouncement of the judgment. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon two judgments of the Apex Court. Firstly he has relied upon the judgment reported in State of Kerala and others v. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai, (2007) 6 SCC 524, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has opined that the principle of “no work no pay” cannot be accepted as a rule of thumb and has further observed that for payment of the back wages different circumstance of every case is to be taken into consideration. The next case relied upon by the learned Counsel on the similar line is V.C. Banaras Hindu University and others v. Shrikant, (2006) 11 SCC 42. In the light of the two judgments the learned Counsel claimed that though the petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis and has worked for seven years, therefore, he is entitled for the back salary. We are of the considered opinion that while addressing this Court, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner could not appreciate the -2- fact that neither the petitioner has challenged his termination order nor the same was set aside with a direction for the reinstatement of the petitioner in service. From the perusal of the impugned judgment it is crystal clear that the Tribunal has specifically directed for the reengagement of the petitioner. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that since a direction has been issued by the Tribunal to reengage the petitioner and he was reengaged and with the passage of time was regularized as well. Accordingly, any person who has been ordered by the Court to be reengaged does not have any right to claim back wages. We further find from the perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal that even no argument was advanced before the Tribunal on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner be reinstated and shall be paid all his back wages. For the first time this argument has been raised by the petitioner before this Court. No other point was pressed on behalf of the petitioner. In the light of above, we find that there is neither any illegality nor any reason to interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. September 16, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (rc)