HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKUR AND HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1174 OF 2010 Dt: 29-11-2011. Between: THE DIRECTOR, SDSC SHAR (Satish Dhawan Space Centre) Sriharikota Range, Nellore District. AND OTHERS .. APPELLANTS AND SHRI SHAIK MOULA ALI .. RESPONDENT HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKUR AND HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1174 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (PER HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI Madan B.Lokur) The appellants are aggrieved by an order dated 8-11-2010 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.5340 of 2009. 2. The respondent applied for voluntary retirement on 29-10- 2008. He stated that he proposed to retire from service on the forenoon of 2-2-2009. On 27.1.2009, the appellants accepted the application for voluntary retirement and two days thereafter i.e. on 29.1.2009 the respondent withdrew his application for voluntary retirement. 3. However, the appellants did not accept the withdrawal on the ground that the voluntary retirement had already been accepted even though the respondent had requested that he would be voluntarily retiring w.e.f. 2.2.2009. A relieving order was issued against the respondent on 10-2-2009 and it was challenged by way of a writ petition. The learned single Judge, while allowing the writ petition held that for the period post 10-2-2009 to the date of reinstatement the respondent will be paid 50 percent of the salary and allowances. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge, the appellants have preferred this writ appeal. 5. Instead of reinstating the respondent, the appellants sought a stay of the order of reinstatement and this was granted by an order dated 16-6-2011 by the Division Bench. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants very frankly states that the legal position is as elucidated by the learned single Judge. Therefore the acceptance of the application for voluntary retirement would really have no legs to stand on since the application itself was to take effect from 2.2.2009 and it could be withdrawn on any date prior thereto. On the facts of this case, it is quite clear that the respondent had withdrawn the application for voluntary retirement on 29-1-2009 before the effective date. 7. The grievance of learned counsel for the appellants is that the principle of ‘no work no pay’ should be applied and that the learned single Judge erred in directing that the respondent be paid 50 percent of the salary and allowances. 8. It is quite clear that the stand of the appellants with regard to the acceptance of the application for voluntary retirement was untenable from the very beginning. Even though the learned single Judge had come to this conclusion, the appellants insisted on filing an appeal and refusing to reinstate the respondent. Having refused to reinstate the respondent, the appellants are attempting to doubly squeeze him by denying him back wages. In our opinion, this is not permissible. We could have understood if the appellants had reinstated the respondent and then insisted that he should not be paid 50 percent of the back wages, but that is not the case of the appellants, who have taken the view that reinstatement of the respondent ought to be refused and payment should also not be made. 9. We are of the opinion that the learned single Judge was quite reasonable in coming to the conclusion that only 50 percent of the back wages be paid to the respondent till reinstatement. The subsequent conduct of the appellants reassures us that the learned single Judge was quite reasonable in giving the directions for payment of 50 % back wages. We may note that the order of the learned single Judge has not been challenged by the respondent. 10. We do not find any merit in this writ appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed and the interim directions stand vacated. Interim applications are also disposed of. ( MADAN B.LOKUR, CJ ) Dt: 29-11-2011. ( SANJAY KUMAR, J ) Nagesh Babu