The appellant State has preferred L.P.A No.256/2012 against the judgment given by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.4326/2007 dated 27th April, 2012, whereby learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition of the petitioner, holding that as the petitioner's resignation, which was submitted on 6.2.1993, has not been accepted by the respondent Department at any point of time, the petitioner can be treated to be in service. In view of the above, learned Single Judge directed the respondent authority to allow the petitioner to join the service. So far as payment of arrears of salary during the intervening period, i.e., from 6.2.1993 onwards, is concerned, it has been held that the same cannot be paid to the petitioner on the basis of “No work, no pay” principle and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to backwages. It is also declared that the petitioner is entitled to have the benefits notionally, on account which he be given the permissible benefits notionally by treating intervening period as continuity of service for all other purposes.

2. The above judgment has been challenged by the writ petitioner by preferring L.P.A No.228/2012, wherein it has been said that t