STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Vs. UPINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent Act challenges to the judgment dated 29.2.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 7530 of 1999 {State of Punjab and others v. Upinder Singh). The facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal as narrated therein are that the writ petitioner (respondent herein) was suffering from kidney problem. Earlier he had filed two writ petitions for the medical advance as well as the medical reimbursement in this Court. The medical advance was sanctioned but unfortunately at that time the donor was over aged and, therefore, the draft handed over to the writ petitioner was deposited back to the Department. The juniors to the writ petitioner were promoted as back as in 1992 to the post of PSE Class II and the case of the writ-petitioner for being promoted was deferred on one reason or the other. When the case of the writ petitioner was not considered for promotion, he filed CWP No. 13469 of 1997. During the pendency of the said writ petition, appellant No. 1 passed an order on 19.12.1997 promoting the writ-petitioner to the post of Principal in PES Class II (School and Inspection Cadre) in the pay scale of Rs. 2400/- Rs. 4000/- from 2.12.1992, the date on which his juniors were promoted. There was no condition mentioned in the order dated 19.12.1997 that the financial benefit would be restricted only from the date of issue of the letter or on any other subsequent date. Accordingly, on promotion, the writ petitioner was entitled to all the consequential benefits in pursuance of order dated 19.12.1997. Further, appellant No. 1 vide order dated 7.1.1998 (Annexure P-2) promoted the writ petitioner as District Science Supervisor. In the letter dated 4.5.1998 (Annexure P-3) issued by appellant No. 3 and sent to appellant No. 2, it was mentioned that the writ petitioner would not get any financial benefit before his joining on the promotional post. On the basis of said letter, appellant No. 2 vide order dated 11.6.1998 (Annexure P-4) restricted the monetary benefits of the writ-petitioner. In view of the orders, Annexures P-3 and P-4, the salary of the writ-petitioner was fixed vide order dated 1.7.1998 (Annexure P-5). Thereafter, the writ-petitioner submitted a representation dated 10.7.1998 (Annexure P-6) to appellant No. 3 for granting him the monetary benefits from the date of promotion i.e. 2.12.1992. When no action was taken by the appellants on the said representation, the writ petitioner sent another representation dated 7.1.1999 (Annexure P-7) mentioning therein that a number of similarly situated persons have been given the benefit from the date of their promotion. However, the writ petitioner came to know that vide order dated 4.5.1999 (Annexure P-8), appellant No. 2 had given antedated promotion and all the benefits from that date to one Smt. Champenetu, S.S. Mistress. Thereafter, the writ petitioner sent a reminder dated 10.5.1999 to appellant No. 1 stating therein that on one side the department is giving antedated promotion as well as monetary benefits to the similarly situated persons whereas in the case of the writ petitioner, he is being denied. But no action was taken thereon. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner filed CWP No. 7530 of 1999 in this Court. The said writ petition was contested by the appellants. It was pleaded that in a case of notional promotion/retrospective promotion, no arrears could be given where the incumbent had not actually worked on the post. Besides controverting the other averments made in the writ petition, it was pleaded that the writ-petitioner had been given notional pay fixation w.e.f. 2.12.1992, the date from which his juniors were promoted. This Court vide order dated 29.2.2012 held the writ petitioner entitled to the consequential benefits and directed to do the needful within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal by the State of Punjab.

(2.) Learned State counsel submitted that the writ petitioner having not worked on the promoted post from 2.12.1992 till 19.12.1997 when he was granted retrospective promotion, the writ petitioner could not have been granted the consequential benefit of arrears of salary for the said period. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. O.P. Gupta etc., 1996 AIR(SC) 2936in support of his submission.

(3.) After hearing learned State counsel for the appellants, we do not find any merit in the appeal. It was not disputed that the writ petitioner was entitled to promotion from the date when his juniors were promoted and was accordingly promoted w.e.f. 2.12.1992. The said promotion was made on 19.12.1997 (Annexure P-1) and the respondent joined on 16.1.1998. It was also not disputed that the delay in promoting the writ petitioner was on account of the matter having been pending before the Anomalies Committee and nothing could be attributed to the writ petitioner for the delay. Once that was so, the writ petitioner was entitled to all consequential benefits.