STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. GIAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 18.08.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has rejected the contention of the appellant-State of Punjab that the writ petitioner-respondent was rightly declined the arrear of salary once he was given promotion from a retrospective date. It has been found by the learned Single Judge that the writ petitioner-respondent was entitled to be given promotion as Senior Assistant from 19.03.1982 but he was actually promoted vide order 10.08.1992 (P-7) w.e.f. 19.03.1982 notionally. The stipulation contained in the order providing that he would not be entitled to any arrear of pay as assistant from the date of promotion to the date he actually joins at his new place of posting because he did not actually work as such has been set aside by the learned Single Judge. In support of his view, the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the judgments rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, 1991 4 SCC 109; Vidya Parkash Harnal v. S tate of Haryana, 1995 3 SCT 785; State of Haryana v. Bani Singh Yadav, 2005 2 SLR 622and State of Kerala v. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai, 2007 6 SCC 524.

(2.) Mr. Suvir Sehgal, learned State counsel has argued that in the case of State of Haryana and others v. O.P. Gupta and others, 1996 7 SCC 533, the principle of no work no pay was made available and notional promotion given to an employee without arrears of pay was upheld. The view of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in O.P. Gupta's case would not come to the rescue of the appellant-State because whenever there is serious dispute concerning seniority then principle of no work no pay may be applied on the ground that the employer was not aware which of the employees deserve to be promoted. In other words, such an employee cannot be available for performing the duty whereas in the present case the order of promotion appears to have been lost and he could succeed in getting his promotion only in pursuance of the direction issued by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, we find that the present case is not covered by the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in O.P. Gupta's case because there was no dispute concerning seniority and the writ petitioner respondent was ready and available to discharge the duty of his office. Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of any merit and is thus, liable to be dismissed.

(3.) As a sequel to the above discussion, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.