5 . In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent nos.1 to 3. In the counter affidavit, a specific stand has been taken that after disposal of the second writ petition i.e. C.W.J.C.No.10897 of 2006, only petitioner no.2 had filed representation and, as such, the case of petitioner no.1 may be rejected on the ground that he had never filed any representation before the authority concerned. So far as claim of petitioner no.2 is concerned, it has been argued by learned State Counsel that on the principle of “no work no pay”, the petitioner has not been granted relief for salary for the said period. He has argued that after the order was passed in the contempt petition, the earlier defect, which had occurred by way of issuance of fresh appointment letters, the period during which the petitioners remained not in service in view of issuance of order of termination, the said period was regularised for all purposes save and except monetary benefit. He further submits that once after disposal of the first writ petition i.e. C.W.J.C.No.1804 of 2001, the petitioners approached this Court for implementation of the order and in contempt proceeding the fact was brought to the notice of the Court regarding reinstatement, without any further direction either by the Court hearing contempt petition or in the first writ petition for payment of wages for the period during
