IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 542 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.8.2009 Ram Kishan ......Appellant Vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam,Ltd. and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Dr.Balram Gupta, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr.Ram Kishan Advocate. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. The appellant, who is now an advocate, has filed this appeal in person against the judgment of the learned Single Judge . The operative part of the judgment is as under: “ Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed, the order dated 19.11.2003 (Annexure P-217) is set aside and the petitioner is ordered to be reinstated into service with all consequential benefits. It is, however, clarified that the petitioner will not be entitled to wages for the period he was out of job.” 2. The appellant was working as Under Secretary (Legal) with the Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam,Ltd., and vide order dated 19.11.2003, he was retired from service in public interest. LPA No. 542 of 2009 [2] 4. Learned Single Judge held that only one adverse ACR was the basis of the order and the said ACR was not justified. Accordingly, the order of compulsory retirement was set aside. The appellant was ordered to be reinstated with all consequential benefits, except back-wages for the period he was out of job. LPA No. 646 of 2009 against the said order was dismissed by us on 24.7.2009. 5. We have heard learned Senior Advocate instructed by the appellant in person as well as in his capacity as an Advocate. 6. It has been argued that once order of compulsory retirement was set aside, the direction to pay wages for the period the appellant was out of job should have followed, as it was not the fault of the appellant that he did not work. He was willing to work and the wages for the period for which he was not allowed to work, could not be denied to him. Reliance has been placed on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India , etc.etc. v. K.V.Janakiraman etc.etc. AIR 1991 Supreme Court 2010(1) and Pritam Singh v. Union of India and others [2005] 9 Supreme Court Cases 748 and judgment of this Court in Krishan Kumar v. Haryana Statre Fed. Of Consumers” Coop. Wholesale Stores Ltd. 1997 (3) SLR 803. 7. We are unable to accept the submission. The principle laid down in the judgments relied upon is not an absolute principle and has been diluted in subsequent judgments including in State of Haryana v. O.P.Gupta, 1996 (7) SCC 533, Para 8, State of Kerala v. E.K.Bhaskaran Pillai (2007)6 SCC 524, para 4, Commr., Karnataka LPA No. 542 of 2009 [3] Housing Board v. C.Muddaiah (2007) 7 SCC 669, para 34, Union of India v. B.M.Jha (2007) 11 SCC 632, para 5 and J.K.Synthetics v. K.P.Agrawal and another (2007) 2 SCC 433. 7. Having regard to the facts of the present case, the learned Single Judge having held that the appellant will not be entitled to any wages for the period he was out of job, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 8. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) August 10, 2009 JUDGE raghav