KRISHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On account of an adverse entry in his annual confidential report, the petitioner was denied promotion to the post of Driver when persons junior to him were promoted. In due course of time, by an order dated 28.10.1999 (Annexure P-6), the adverse annual confidential report, which was the basis for denying him promotion to the post of Driver, came to be expunged. On account of expunction of the aforesaid report, the petitioner claims promotion to the post of Driver with effect from the date person junior to him was promoted as such. Since the said relief was denied to the petitioner, he approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. During the pendency of the instant writ petition, the respondents have passed an order dated 19.12.2005. A copy of the same has been handed over to us in Court today. The said order dated 19.12.2005 is taken on record and marked as Annexure 'A'. A perusal of Annexure 'A' would reveal, that the petitioner has now been allowed promotion to the post of Driver w.e.f. 21.8.1997, though he had originally been promoted to the said post w.e.f. 5.5.2003. The order at Annexure 'A', therefore, satisfies the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Driver with effect from the date his junior was promoted as such.

(2.) The only remaining grievance of the petitioner is for arrears of salary payable to him on account of the fact, that he was wrongfully denied promotion to the post of Driver when persons junior to him were promoted as such w.e.f. 21.8.1997. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that he should be paid arrears w.e.f. 28.10.1999 i.e. the date on which his adverse annual confidential report was expunged. We have considered the aforesaid issue at some length. While it is not disputed, that the petitioner did not render service as Driver w.e.f. 21.8.1997 and could have legitimately been denied wages from the retrospective date under the principle of 'no work no pay', and also because of the adverse report issued to him; yet it is apparent from the sequence of facts narrated in the pleadings of the instant case, that the denial of promotion was for no fault of the petitioner. In these circumstances, we consider it just and appropriate to award a lump-sum payment to the petitioner as compensation in lieu of the wages for the period he was not permitted to discharge his duties as Driver. Having posed this to the parties, we are satisfied, that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- would be appropriate compensation to the petitioner in lieu of wages payable to him w.e.f. 21.8.1997 till the date of his actual promotion on 5.5.2003. Ordered accordingly.