[2025:RJ-JP:13567] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10165/2012 Shyam Lal Jain s/o Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, aged 27 years, Resident of Village Pipalwada Nadi, Post Bichhidona, P.S. Bonli, District Sawaimadhopur presently working on the post of Animal Husbandry/Livestock Specialist under the scheme of IWMP at Panchayat Samiti Bonli District Sawaimadhopur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan, through Director, Watershed Development and Soil Conservation Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Project Manager-cum-Executive Engineer, District Watershed Development Unit, Zila Parishad Sawaimadhopur. 3. The Assistant Engineer-cum-Project Implementing Agency (PIA), IWMP Panchayat Samiti Bonli, District Sawaimadhopur. 4. The Chief Executive Officer Zila Sawaimadhopur. 5. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Bonli District Sawaimadhopur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarun Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Sharma for Mr. Kesar Singh Shekhawat, Addl. GC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 25/03/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a prayer has been made for issuing directions to the respondents to release the payment of remuneration to the petitioner for the period commencing from 19.02.2011 till 22.12.2011. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Livestock Assistant under the [2025:RJ-JP:13567] (2 of 3) [CW-10165/2012] scheme of NWDPRA at Panchayat Samiti Bonli, District Sawaimadhopur. Learned counsel submits that the respondents wanted to replace the services of the petitioner by engaging another set of contractual employees, hence under these circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2925/2011, wherein an interim order was passed by this Court on 07.03.2011 and the respondents were restrained from substituting the petitioner by another set of incumbents pursuant to the advertisement dated 01.12.2010. Learned counsel submits that in pursuance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner appeared before the respondents for his joining and even the Project Director of the Scheme i.e. Superintendent Engineer directed the Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Bonli vide order dated 26.05.2011 to allow the petitioner to join his service but for no good reason, the petitioner was not allowed to re-join till 22.12.2011, hence an unnecessary delay was caused by the respondents due to which the petitioner has suffered financial crunch. Hence, under these circumstances, the respondents be directed to pay salary to the petitioner for the said intervening period. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that at the time of passing of the interim order by this Court, the petitioner was continuing on the post held by him and after passing of the aforesaid order, the scheme was amended and, thereafter, the petitioner was re-engaged in the subsequent scheme on 22.12.2011. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has not worked for the intervening period. Hence, under [2025:RJ-JP:13567] (3 of 3) [CW-10165/2012] these circumstances, he is not entitled to get any remuneration/salary for the said period and the instant writ petition is liable to be rejected. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. The petitioner approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2925/2011 seeking issuance of directions to the respondents to not to replace him from another set of contractual employees and the aforesaid prayer was accepted by passing an interim order by restraining the respondents from replacing, pursuant to the advertisement dated 01.12.2010. It appears that the scheme under which the petitioner was working was amended and, thereafter, he was joined on the said post in the month of December, 2011 and since then he is continuing on the said post but looking to the fact that the petitioner has not worked for this intervening period. The principle of “No work no pay” would be applicable. 6. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the respondents and looking to the fact that the petitioner has not discharged any work or duty in the intervening period from 19.02.2011 to 22.12.2011, the petitioner is not entitled to get any monetary benefits. 7. This Court finds no substance and merit in this petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. All applications (pending, if any) also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/128