RAJ KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 15.4.2009 has declined the prayer of the appellant for payment of enhanced salary for the period from 12.3.1982 to 7.11.1995 on the rationale that he did not ever work on the promotional post in respect of that period nor he opted for promotion in response to the letter of the respondents. Such an option was offered when the cadre of Accounts Officer was provincialised but the appellant declined to opt for the same. The operative part of the judgment declining the prayer made by the appellant reads as under:

(2.) It is appropriate to mention that the appellant was initially appointed as Accountant in the office of Improvement Trust, Amritsar on 12.6.1973. In the year 1982, the services of the cadre of Accounts Officer was provincialised and options were solicited from all such employees including the appellant. One Shri K.P. Gosain, who was junior to the appellant opted for provincialised service whereas the appellant expressly declined to opt. Shri K.P. Gosain was promoted as Accounts Officer and then to the post of Deputy Controller (Finance and Accounts). The appellant challenged his promotion order by filing CWP No. 466 of 1984 on the ground that Shri K.P. Gosain was junior to him. The writ petition was, however, dismissed by this Court on 9.10.2002 (R-1). However, during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the Government vide order dated 17.8.2001 (P-1) conceded to the request made by the appellant for his absorption in the provincialised cadre and especially in view of the fact that he was senior to Shri K.P. Gosain. Accordingly, the appellant was also promoted as Deputy Controller (Finance and Accounts) with all consequential benefits from the date when Shri K.P. Gosain was promoted as such.

(3.) It has come on record that the appellant was promoted on the post of Accounts Officer in the year 1984 and to the post of Deputy Controller (Finance and Accounts) in the year 1995. He has also been paid salary for the promotional post of Deputy Controller from 7.11.1995. However, his claim is for payment of enhanced salary for the period commencing from 12.3.1982 to 7.11.1995 when he did not work on the promotional post. The aforesaid claim of the appellant has been declined by the learned Single Judge citing the reason that the principle of 'no work no pay' would apply because the appellant did not work on the post of Deputy Controller (Finance and Accounts) for that period. The denial of promotion was not due to any illegal act on the part of the department but the appellant had not opted for the provincialised cadre.