JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Respondent.

2. This petition is filed by the Union of India challenging the judgment and order dated 9th August 2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) in Original Application No. 787/2010. Petitioners are aggrieved by the direction of the Tribunal for payment of arrears of salary during the intervening period of compulsory retirement till reinstatement in service.

3. The case has a checkered history. Respondent was appointed as a Driver in the Central Excise Commissionerate at Mumbai on 30 March 1989. He was deputed to drive a vehicle to Alibaug, Murud, Srivardhan and Mahabaleshwar in connection with some wireless maintenance work at the relay stations during 4 June 2003 to 8 June 2003. One Shri. S. A. Keer, Cashier wanted to join the journey till Mahabaleshwar in connection with his own work. It is alleged that one person identified as Shri. A.K. Pasha handed over some money to Shri. Keer, who requested Respondent to count the same. After counting Respondent returned the money to Shri. Keer. The amount was handed over by Shri. Keer to Shri. M. S. Kamble, a Clerk in the office. The Anti-Corruption Bureau of Central Bureau of Investigation had laid a trap and they apprehended Shri. Keer, Shri. Kamble and the Respondent. Respondent was arrested and kept under deemed suspension w.e.f. 5 June 2003, which was revoked in April 2004. While Shri. Keer was prosecuted, no prosecution was launched against Respondent. A Memorandum of Chargesheet for holding departmental enquiry was issued to Respondent on 13 September 2004 on the allegation of knowledge about receipt of amount by Shri. Keer towards illegal gratification and not discouraging Shri. Keer from doing so.

4. After holding Departmental Enquiry, punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on Respondent by order dated 8 January 2008. Respondent’s appeal and revision were rejected. He therefore filed Original Application No.787/2010 before the Tribunal challenging the orders of the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority and sought reinstatement in service with arrears of salary, continuation of service etc.

5. The Tribunal held Shri. M.S. Kamble, who was facing almost identical charge, was imposed lesser punishment of stoppage of one increment for a period of three years. The Tribunal therefore partly allowed the Original Application of Respondent directing Petitioner-Union of India to reinstate him in service with continuity of service. The Tribunal however directed that Respondent would not be entitled to any arrears of salary for the period from his compulsory retirement till his reinstatement on the principle of ‘No Work No Pay’. The penalty imposed on him was reduced to stoppage of one increment for three years on par with Shri. M.S. Kamble.

6. The judgment and order dated 21 February 2013 passed by the Tribunal became subject matter of challenge both by Petitioners as well as by Respondent. Writ Petition No. 6368/2013 filed by the Petitioners questioning Tribunal’s direction for reduction of penalty and reinstatement came to be dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 21 June 2017. Petitioners preferred Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 14835/2018 before the Apex Court challenging this Court’s decision, which came to be dismissed by order dated 17 July 2018. In the meantime, Writ Petition No. 11391/2013 filed by the Respondent to the limited extent of denial of backwages came to be partly allowed by this Court vide order dated 25 January 2018 with following directions :

“7. Thus, as of today the order of reinstatement passed by the Tribunal stands. The petitioner has filed this Petition seeking relief that he be reinstated with effect form 08/01/2008 with continuity in service, full backwages and all other consequential benefits.

8. I