PREM CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner earlier approached this Court in writ petition No. 17896 of 1991 claiming promotion from the date the person junior to him was promoted. The writ petition was allowed on Dec. 3, 1991 with the direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner regarding promotion retrospectively as Inspector from the date the person junior to him was promoted. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted as Inspector with effect from Nov. 28,1990. However, in the order of promotion Annexure P.l it was stated that the petitioner was not to be entitled to any arrears of pay and allowances. It is this order which is being challenged in this writ petition. The claim is made on the basis of the decision of this Court in CWP No. 487 of 1989, Sikandar Lal Vs. State of Haryana, decided on July 13, 1989 Annexure P.2, In the reply filed the claim of the petitioner has been refuted on the ground that the petitioner did not work for the period for which he claims promotion and he was not entitled to the grant of arrears of pay we have heard the counsel for the parties.

(2.) The State Counsel has relied upon by the decision of the Supreme Court in Paluru Ramkrishanian and others Vs. Union of India and another, A.I.R. 1990 Supreme Court 166 . On going through the judgment we find that limited relief in that case was granted a keeping in view the fact that there was delay of 17 years in approaching the Court and further Madhya Pradesh High Court earlier had granted limited relief in Appeal No. 441 of 1991. It was on that basis that the Supreme Court also granted limited relief. Principle of 'No work-No pay' cannot be attracted to the case in hand as due promotion was not allowed to the petitioner at the relevant time when persons junior to him was promoted and the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of inaction on the part of the respondents. May be on account of adverse remarks the petitioner was not promptly promoted and it was on expunction of the same that he was promoted subsequently. Be that as it may, the relief even then cannot be denied to the petitioner finding, that there was no justification for not fixing the petitioner in the promotional post. In Sikandar Lal's case (supra) reliance was placed on earlier three decisions of this Court wherein the principles of 'No work-No pay' was not applied in such circumstances. The facts of the present case more or less are similar as that of Sikandar Lal's case.

(3.) For the reasons recorded above this writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay arrears of pay and allowances from the date of promotion within a period of 3 months, There will be no order as to costs, Petition allowed.