entitlement of back wages

 In PNB v. Virendra Kumar Goel, AIR 2004 SC 3988, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under:

 

"The applicants shall be reinstated into their posts with continuity in service, back wages and all consequential benefits as are entitled to them under the law. They shall, however, refund the entire amount deposited into their bank accounts with interest accrued, if any, to the bank. Full refund of the amount by the applicants would be the condition precedent for reinstatement. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi learned ASG submits that applying the principle of 'No Work No Pay', back wages should not be allowed to them on their reinstatement. We are unable to accept this contention. The applicants were out of their jobs for no fault of theirs. Even otherwise, party in breach of contract can hardly seek for any equitable relief."

 

Similar view has been taken by this Hon'ble Court in 2007(3)ADJ1 Brijendra Prakash v. Director of Education and also in 2007 4 AWC 3382, Ram Narain Singh's Case, and in Mukeem Ahmad v. State of UP, Writ Petition No. 4599 of 2010 (S/S) dated 5.1.2011 (reported at MANU/UP/0056/2011

No work no pay - not applicable in case of forced retirement

2007(3)ADJ1, 2008 6 AWC5580 - Brijendra Prakash

Consequence of transaction in breach of court order

It is well settled principle of law that an authority proceeding with any matter after the prohibitory order passed by the Competent Court, has to be seriously viewed and the parties should be put back to the original position as no one can be permitted to enjoy the fruits of any order which was passed in contravention to the stay order. The said principle is fully explained by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2010 (4) SC 519 Manohar Lal (D) by Lrs v. Ugrasen (D) by Lrs.)

See also: 
2011(3)CTC46 (Madras)
AIR 1967 SC 1386
 AIR 1996 SC 135
AIR 2007 SC 1386

Writ not maintainable when consequential order alone is challenged

2011 29 LCD 610

Land Acquisition - Avoid Agricultural Land

Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 792

Order II, Rule 2

Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 2198 of 2012

Petitioner :- M/S.Roxy Petrochem Pvt.Ltd.Delhi Through Its Director

Respondent :- U.P.Financial Corporation Limited Kanpur Through M.D.&

Ors.

Petitioner Counsel :- S.B.Pandey

Respondent Counsel :- Prashant Kumar

Alternative Remedy

A Full Bench of this Court in Chandrama Singh Vs. Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Union, Lucknow and others, 1991 (2) UPLEBC 898 has held that when a litigant wants to bye pass statutory alternative remedy, he must plead and place necessary facts in the writ petition to show that alternative remedy is not efficacious and speedy