ORDER : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. The petitioner herein calls in question legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 6-8-2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 by which while reinstating him in service, his suspension period has been treated to be in continuous service, however, refused to grant consequential benefits. 2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop: - 3. The petitioner was working as Cook in the Aadivasi Boys Hostel, Bodla, Block Bodla, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham and during the course of inspection, he was found to have treated the students residing therein with cruelty and said to have beaten the students leading to institution of departmental enquiry and he was placed under suspension on 23-8-2016 and after full-fledged enquiry, by the impugned order dated 6-8-2019, he was subjected to minor punishment of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect and it was further directed that suspension period will be treated as period on duty, however, pay and allowances for that period have been refused. The petitioner has called in question the part of order by which pay and allowances have been refused. 4. Mr. Ashesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein, would submit that the Collector is absolutely unjustified in denying the consequential benefits arising from the imposition of punishment and as such, all the consequential benefits ought to have been awarded while reinstating the petitioner. Therefore, the order impugned denying payment of pay and allowances for the period of suspension be set aside. 5. Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned State counsel, would support the impugned order and oppose the writ petition and would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Om Pal Singh v. Disciplinary Authority and others , (2020) 3 SCC 103 to support his contention. 6. True it is that while imposing minor punishment of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect, the suspension period of the petitioner has been treated as period on duty, however, consequential benefits for that period have been denied, which has been called in question. 7. 6. True it is that while imposing minor punishment of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect, the suspension period of the petitioner has been treated as period on duty, however, consequential benefits for that period have been denied, which has been called in question. 7. In this regard, the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Om Pal Singh (supra) may be noticed herein in which their Lordships have held that if reinstatement is a consequence of imposition of a lesser punishment, neither back wages nor continuity of service nor consequential benefits follow as a natural or necessary consequence of such reinstatement, and observed as under: - “10. The only question that arises for our consideration in the present appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to payment of salary for the period of suspension i.e. from 29-7-2003 to 10- 9-2012. There is no need to reiterate that the order of dismissal was set aside and the punishment of reduction in timescale of pay was imposed on the appellant. It is clear that the findings of the inquiry officer that the charges against the appellant were proved and have not been disturbed. Reduction of the penalty from dismissal to that of reduction in timescale of pay does not result in exoneration of the appellant of the charges framed against him. However, it is for the disciplinary authority to take a decision as to how the period of suspension shall be treated. While passing the impugned order dated 29- 10-2015, the disciplinary authority held that the appellant shall not be entitled for any payment from 6-7-2004 to 29-8-2012. 11. In J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal , (2007) 2 SCC 433 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 651, this Court dealt with the issue regarding the entitlement of a delinquent to claim continuity of service and consequential benefits in all cases of reinstatement as follows: (SCC p. 448, para 17) “17. There is also a misconception that whenever reinstatement is directed, “continuity of service” and “consequential benefits” should follow, as a matter of course. The disastrous effect of granting several promotions as a “consequential benefit” to a person who has not worked for 10 to 15 years and who does not have the benefit of necessary experience for discharging the higher duties and functions of promotional posts, is seldom visualised while granting consequential benefits automatically. The disastrous effect of granting several promotions as a “consequential benefit” to a person who has not worked for 10 to 15 years and who does not have the benefit of necessary experience for discharging the higher duties and functions of promotional posts, is seldom visualised while granting consequential benefits automatically. Whenever courts or tribunals direct reinstatement, they should apply their judicial mind to the facts and circumstances to decide whether “continuity of service” and/or “consequential benefits” should also be directed. We may in this behalf refer to the decisions of this Court in A.P. SRTC v. S. Narsagoud , (2003) 2 SCC 212 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 161, A.P. SRTC v. Abdul Kareem , (2005) 6 SCC 36 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 790 and Rajasthan SRTC v. Shyam Bihari Lal Gupta , (2005) 7 SCC 406 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 67.” 12. It was further held in the said judgment that if reinstatement is a consequence of imposition of a lesser punishment, neither back wages nor continuity of service nor consequential benefits follow as a natural or necessary consequence of such reinstatement. This Court went on to hold that where the misconduct was held to be proved, reinstatement by itself is a consequential benefit arising from imposition of a lesser punishment. However, this Court was of the opinion that award of back wages for the period when the employee has not worked may amount to rewarding the delinquent employee and punishing the employer for taking action against the misconduct committed by the employee, which should be avoided.” 8. Since the petitioner has been punished by imposing minor punishment, it was for the disciplinary authority to take decision as to how the period of suspension shall be treated. In the present case, the disciplinary authority while reinstating the petitioner has treated the suspension period as continuity of service, however, consequential benefits have been denied keeping in view that during suspension period, the petitioner has not worked and therefore he is not entitled for pay and allowances during that period, which is in accordance with law and in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Om Pal Singh (supra). I do not find any merit in this writ petition, it deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).