C.W.P No. 12927 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 12927 of 2008 Date of decision : February 12, 2009 Baldev Singh, ...... Petitioner (s) v. State of Haryana and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. V.S.Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) The petitioner had been appointed as Jail Warder. Later, during verification it had transpired that he had been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 325/323/341 of the IPC in case FIR No.382, dated 6.12.1993. Consequently, he was dismissed from service. Thereafter, in appeal against conviction, the petitioner was allowed to compound the offences. After compounding, he filed an appeal before respondent No.2 for reinstatement, which was allowed with the following order :- “ Keeping in view the above explained facts and C.W.P No. 12927 of 2008 ::2:: circumstances of the case, his service record and various judgments of the Supreme Court of India, have come to the conclusion that Ex. Warder Baldev Singh should not be dismissed from service. As such, his appeal is accepted and he is taken back in service as Warder, which will meet the ends of justice. As regard as the period he remained out of service, no dues arrear of pay is to be given as it is settled law of “No work no pay”. After re-instatement he is posted at Sub Jail, Jagadhri.” However, thereafter, order dated 3.4.2007 was passed in which it was mentioned that not only would he be not entitled to arrears of pay for the period he remained out of job but also he would not get even notional benefit for the said period and the same would not be treated as qualifying period for any purpose. In the written statement no reason has been mentioned to justify the subsequent order. As per the original order of reinstatement, the petitioner could have been denied only pay for the period he remained out of job but the said order did not envisage the other consequences which have now visited the petitioner. No provision of law has been cited by the respondents under which this power of review had been exercised. It is not out of place to mention here that in an appeal filed against the order dated 4.12.2006, the appellate authority viz. the Principal Secretary, Home specifically upheld the order dated 4.12.2006. On this score alone, the order dated 3.4.2007 is liable to be set aside. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 3.4.2007 is set aside and it is declared that except for pay the petitioner C.W.P No. 12927 of 2008 ::3:: would be entitled to all other consequential benefits for the period he remained out of job. No costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) February 12, 2009. JUDGE `kk'