BANSI LAL TULI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the petitioner was fully qualified and eligible for being promoted as Sub Divisional Engineer in H.S.E. Class II Service. On regular basis with effect from 1st Jan., 1984, against the quota reserved for Junior Engineers and Drafts man/A.I.E.E.E. Degree Holder officials. However, as the petitioner was not promoted as per his entitlement with effect from the aforesaid date, that is, 1st Jan., 1984, he represented and the matter remained under consideration with the State Govt, for quite some time. Ultimately, it was by order dated 2nd Dec., 1992 (Annexure P.l), passed by the Governor of Haryana in consultation with the Haryana Public Service Commission that he was promoted in pursuance of Sub-Rule (II) of Rule 9 of P.S.E. Class Public Works Department (B&R Branch) Rules, 1965, as applicable to the State of Haryana, respectively with effect from 1st Jan., 1984. Though the petitioner has beer promoted by the aforesaid order dated 2nd Dec., 1992, retrospectively with effect from 1st Jan., 1984, yet a rider has been incorporation in the order, that is". The officers will not be entitled for arrears from the date of promotion to the date of their taking over the charge." Aggrieved against this, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court on the ground, that it was not due to the fault of the petitioner that he was not promoted earlier.

(2.) In response to the writ petition, written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent in which it has been pleaded that the arrears of salary have been denied to the petitioner as no vacant post was available in the Department against which the posting of the petitioner could be ordered.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the plea raised by the respondents is wholly untenable in law. It is not the case of no work no pa, but in fact the petitioner was prevented from discharging his duties of the higher post, as the order of promotion was issued on 2nd Dec., 1992, even though the date of promotion had been mentioned as 1st Jan., 1984. This can hardly be ground for denying the arrears of salary to the petitioners. If the respondent has taken almost nine years in redressing the grievance of the petitioner, it is not his fault for which he can be made to suffer.