As per case facts, appellants, originally daily wage workers, sought regularization as Forest Guards in 2008. They successfully completed the selection process but were denied appointment due to a flawed ... district-wise merit list. Though later appointed in 2010, their appointments were soon cancelled without justification. Following multiple court directives, a State-wise merit list was finally prepared, leading to their appointment in 2017 with retrospective seniority, but they were not granted backwages for the intervening period. The question arose whether denying backwages to these employees, who were kept out of service due to the employer's error, aligns with principles of justice, especially when retrospective seniority was granted and juniors received full benefits. Finally, the court determined that the "no work no pay" rule cannot be mechanically applied where employees were ready to work but were prevented by the employer's illegal actions. Denying arrears, despite granting retrospective seniority, was deemed discriminatory and an incomplete compliance with judicial orders. Thus, the appellants were held entitled to arrears of pay and consequential benefits from when their juniors were appointed.