The main legal point established in the judgment is that a government servant, whose compulsory retirement is set aside by the court, is entitled to full pay and allowances for the intervening period as per Rule 54(A)(1) and (3) of the Fundamental Rules, 1956.

JUDGMENT :

N.K. Chandravanshi, J.

1. This writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 3-5-2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 5384/2017, whereby the order dated 11-9-2017 of compulsory retirement of appellant/petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') passed by the respondents was set aside/quashed and direction was issued for reinstatement of petitioner. He was held entitled to all consequential benefits, but monetary benefits for the intervening period were denied.

2. The petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Ranger in the year 1992 and he completed probation period in the year 1994. In the D.P.C. held in the year 2015, he was found suitable for promotion from the post of Ranger to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest, but due to insufficiency of vacancy, he could not be promoted. Again in the year, 2016, he was found fit for promotion by the D.P.C. and vide order dated 19-9-2016, he was promoted from the post of Ranger to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests. But vide order dated 11-9-2017, the respondents, invoking the provisions contained in Rule 2 (A) of the Fundamental Rules, 1956 and Sub Rule (1) (B) of Rule 42 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976, compulsorily retired him. The petitioner assailed the order of his compulsory retirement dated 11-9-2017 by filing WP(S) No. 5384/2017. The same was allowed in part by the learned Single Judge, as has been stated in para 1 of this judgment. Since, the learned Single Judge did not grant relief regarding monetary benefits for the intervening period, this writ appeal was filed for aforesaid limited grievance.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned Single Judge, while considering the order of compulsory retirement dated 11-9-2017 at length, has found that the order of compulsory retirement was absolutely arbitrary, malafide, unreasonable and unjustifiable. No fault of petitioner of any nature was found. No ground has also been specified in the order for denying monetary benefits. The learned Single Judge ought to have granted relief of monetary benefits for the intervening period also. He would further submit that principal of "No work, no pay" is not applicable in this case, because the petitioner was prevented from doing his work due to illegal order of compulsory retirement passed by the respondents and also because the petitioner was not gainfully employed during that intervening period. Further contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner is that due to such illegality committed by the respondents, the petitioner suffered irreparable loss including monetary loss. If he is not granted monetary benefits for the intervening period, then it would amount to approval of wrong done by the respondents, which would cause gross injustice to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner would next submit that the Rule 54 (A) (1) and (3) of the Fundamental Rules, 1956 also provides that if compulsory retirement of a government servant is set aside by the Court on merits of the case, then he shall be entitled to full pay and allowances for the period to which, he would have been entitled. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shobha Ram Raturi v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and others reported in (2016) 16 SCC 663. Thus, he prayed for grant of relief as has been sought for.

4. Learned State counsel, while supporting the reply filed by him, would submit that respondents did not assail the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the same has been complied with and implemented in its letter and spirit. After passing of that order, the petitioner submitted his joining report on 27-9-2019, which was allowed by the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner filed this belated writ appeal deliberately, i.e. after execution of the order. He would further submit that since the petitioner has acquiesced his right as order has been co