CW 9440/06 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH [1] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9440/06 Heera Singh Versus State & Anr. [2] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9458/06 Jagveer Singh Versus State & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : 02/02/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Manoj Pareek, for petitioners Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, Addl. Govt. Counsel, for respondents *** Instant petitions have been filed by petitioners assailing orders dt.21/02/05 & 21/08/04 whereby giving them benefit of notional fixation of pay, the respondents denied salary for the intervening period during which they remained out of employment. Petitioners are working as Prahari and for the alleged delinquency, they were charge sheeted and finally after held guilty punished with the penalty of dismissal from service vide order dt.21st September, 1993 - against which they preferred appeal, which was dismissed on 6th July, 1994 and review petition preferred also met the same fate. This was challenged by the petitioners before this court in CW Nos.880/96 & 656/96 which were decided on 10th November, 2003. While upholding guilt of the petitioners, punishment of removal was converted into three grade increments with cumulative effect. In compliance of the judgment CW 9440/06 [2] of this court referred to supra, respondents reinstated the petitioners in service, but while regularizing the intervening period, granted benefit of notional fixation of pay but on the basis of principles of “no work no pay” salary for the intervening period was denied to them. Counsel for petitioners submits that once punishment has been altered by this court from dismissal to three grade increments with cumulative effect; as a consequence whereof, they are entitled for salary for the intervening period - denial thereof is in violation of principles of natural justice. Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition wherein it has been averred that guilt was finally upheld even by this court, but lesser punishment from dismissal to three grade increments with cumulative effect has been inflicted upon them, as such the respondents in exercise of power under R.54(3) of Rajasthan Service Rules regularized the period for all practical purposes with notional fixation of pay, but withheld salary on the basis of principles of “no work no pay” so that they may not suffer any financial loss in future. CW 9440/06 [3] I have considered submissions of counsel for parties and perused the material on record. It is not the case where petitioners have been exonerated from the charge levelled against them and once they were held guilty and upheld by this court inflicting penalty of stoppage of three grade increments in lieu of dismissal which was earlier effected by the competent authority under CCA Rules, 1958 certainly intervening period could be regularized in terms of R.54(3) of the Rules and when the petitioners had not worked during intervening period, the authority be said to be justified in withholding salary for the intervening period, but at the same time, considered appropriate to grant them benefit of notional fixation of pay so that they may not suffer any future financial loss. This court does not find any infirmity in the order impugned which may call for interference. Consequently, writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA9440CW06 2-2.doc