SUSHILA JAIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Primary Education Officer with the Haryana State Education Department on 14.11.1974. Her services were regularized on 1.1.1980. The petitioner earned promotions to the post of Head Mistress on 11.1.1988 and as Principal on 31.1.1991. While the petitioner was posted as Sub Divisional Education Officer, Panipat, a complaint was filed against her on the basis of which FIR No. 17 dated 5.4.2002, under Sections 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against her at Police Station SVB (H), Rohtak. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 12.9.2002, but was re-instated with effect from 12.12.2002. A Departmental Promotion Committee considered the cases of eligible employees for promotion to HES Class-I in the year 2002 but the petitioner was ignored on account of the pendency of the criminal proceedings initiated on account of filing of FIR No. 17 dated 5.4.2002. Vide judgment dated 12.5.2008, passed by the Special Judge, Panipat, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges levelled against her. The petitioner, accordingly, submitted a representation for promotion to HES Class-I with effect from the date her juniors had been so promoted. In such representation, the petitioner took a specific stand that she had been ignored only on account of pendency of the criminal proceedings and she having earned acquittal was entitled for promotion retrospectively. Order dated 19.9.2008, Annexure P2, was passed by respondent No. 1 whereby the suspension period of the petitioner i.e. 12.9.2002 to 12.12.2002 was ordered to be treated as duty period for all intents and purposes. Vide order dated 31.12.2008, Annexure P3, passed by respondent No. 1, the petitioner has been promoted to HES Class-I in the grade of Rs. 10,000-325-13,900 w.e.f. 25.7.2003. However, in the light of condition No. 5 of such order, the petitioner has been held entitled to the benefit of pay fixation and seniority from the date of such retrospective promotion but not the actual arrears for the period in question. The petitioner thereafter raised a claim to be granted actual arrears for the period 25.7.2003 till 31.12.2008 but the same has been rejected vide memo dated 18.8.2009, Annexure P5, citing the principle of 'No Work No Pay'.

(2.) It is in the light of such factual backdrop that the present writ petition has been filed impugning the memo dated 18.8.2009, Annexure P5, and raising a claim that the petitioner be released the salary/arrears for such period i.e. 25.7.2003 to the actual date of promotion.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the solitary basis for denying the petitioner the benefit of promotion to HES Class-I in the year 2003 was the pendency of the criminal proceedings and the petitioner having earned acquittal in FIR No. 17 dated 5.4.2002 was vested with the right not only to be promoted retrospectively with effect from the date her juniors were promoted but was also entitled to all consequential benefits in the nature of salary for such period. In support of such contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the following judicial pronouncements: