[2025:RJ-JP:3789] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4342/2013 Mahaveer Kumar Yogi S/o Shri Gajanand Yogi, Village Sonad, Via, Tunga, Distt. Dausa Raj. posted as G.N.M. under N.R.H.M. at Community Health Centre, Sri Doongargarh, Bikaner. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Director, Medical & Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur Raj. 2. The Mission Director, National Rural Health Mission, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Bikaner Raj. 4. The Medical Officer Incharge, Community Health Centre, Sri Doongargarh, Bikaner. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahmed For Respondent(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 27/01/2025 1. By way of filing the instant writ petition, a prayer has been made by the petitioner for issuing directions to the respondents to pay him honorarium for the intervening period with effect from 20.01.2012 till 03.10.2012 i.e. from the date when the services of the petitioner were terminated till the order of reinstatement of the petitioner was passed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working on the post of General Nurse & Mid-wife (for short [2025:RJ-JP:3789] (2 of 3) [CW-4342/2013] ‘G.N.M.’) and his services were illegally terminated by the respondents vide order dated 20.01.2012. 3. Counsel submits that the aforesaid action of the respondents was assailed by the petitioner before this Court by way of filing of the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3601/2012. Counsel submits that the said petition was disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Project Director, National Rural Health Mission (for short ‘NRHM’) by way of filing a representation. 4. Counsel submits that in pursuance of the aforesaid order, a representation was submitted and the Director, NRHM, recalled the termination order of the petitioner and reinstated him. 5. Counsel submits that when the impugned termination order of the petitioner was found to be improper and he was taken back in service, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to get salary for the intervening period. Hence, appropriate orders be passed to the respondents for payment of the honorarium of the aforesaid period. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that in the intervening period, the petitioner has not worked, hence, under these circumstances, he is not entitled to get any salary/honorarium, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 7. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 8. This fact is not in dispute that services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondents vide order dated 20.01.2012. This fact is also not in dispute that the aforesaid order was recalled and the petitioner was reinstated vide order dated 21.09.2012, but [2025:RJ-JP:3789] (3 of 3) [CW-4342/2013] this fact could not be ignored that in the aforesaid intervening period, the petitioner has not worked with the respondents- department, hence, under these circumstances, the principle/theory of “No Work No Pay”, will prevail. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get salary honorarium for the above intervening period. This Court finds no merit and substance in the instant petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby rejected. 9. Stay application as well as all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Garima/74