JUDGMENT :

Sudesh Bansal, J.

1. This civil contempt petition has been filed, alleging noncompliance of the judgment and order dated 28.04.2008 whereby and whereunder, following directions were issued in favour of the petitioner:-

"Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed. Respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to join service as Female Health Worker in pursuance of order Ann. 3 dated 8th July, 2000 within one month and consequential benefits flowing thereof be paid to her within three months. No order as to costs"

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the aforesaid directions were not complied with, the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 618/2008 and during the course of said contempt petition, the respondents allowed the petitioner to join services on the post of Woman Health Worker w.e.f. 08.05.2008, pursuant to her appointment order dated 08.07.2000. At that point of time, respondents assured to extend the consequential benefits to the petitioner as well within a period of six weeks and therefore, the contempt petition was disposed of vide order dated 19.08.2011 with liberty to file fresh contempt petition, if new cause of action arises.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents did not adhere to their assurance and remained fail to grant the consequential benefits to petitioner, therefore against part of non-compliance of the judgment dated 28.04.2008, this contempt petition has been filed.

4. The respondents have filed reply to the contempt petition, alleging inter alia that consequential benefits pursuant to the appointment to the petitioner have also been granted vide order dated 25.10.2011, copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure CR/1.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since there is no specific directions in the judgment dated 28.04.2008 to pay the back wages and actual monetary benefits to the petitioner, the petitioner has been given benefit on notional basis from July, 2000 to May, 2008 and an amount of Rs. 26,746/- has been found payable to the petitioner vide order dated 17.08.2011. The respondents have offered this amount to the petitioner by way of cheque No. 431993 dated 25.10.2011, but the petitioner refused to accept the same contending that this is a part payment of back wages, whereas she is entitled for full back wages w.e.f. the date of her initial appointment i.e. 08.07.2000 onwards. The respondents have placed on record the order dated 17.08.2011 as also the copy of cheque with the letter of refusal by the petitioner to receive the cheque. Thus, the counsel for the respondents submits that the judgment dated 28.04.2008 has been complied with and there is no deliberate defiance on the part of respondents. As such the proceedings of contempt petition be dropped.

6. The petitioner has filed rejoinder, alleging inter alia that the consequential benefits include the payment of actual monetary benefits of back wages and therefore, though the petitioner has been allowed to join services in pursuance to the appointment order dated 08.07.2000 but she is also entitled to get all the back wages from the date of her appointment. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the respondents are guilty of non-compliance of the part of judgment dated 28.04.2008 due to not granting the back wages and actual monetary benefits by awarding only notional benefits. To buttress his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Commissioner Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah reported in [2007 (7) SCC 689] wherein in para No. 34 following principle has been propounded which reads as under:-

"We are conscious and mindful that even in absence of statutory provision, normal rule is "no work no pay". In appropriate cases, however, a Court of Law may, nay must, take into account all the facts in their entirety and pass an appropriate order in consonance