INDER RAJ Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No.1 was appointed as Cook on 13.11.1986. Petitioner No.2 was appointed as Cook on 18.6.1986. They were promoted as whole time contingent with effect from 5.3.1997 and 2.8.1999. However, the fact of the matter is that four persons, namely, S/Sh. Nanak Chander, Chain Singh, Mahender Kumar and Hari Singh, who admittedly were junior to petitioners, were promoted to higher post. Petitioners made representations to Resident Commissioner for considering their case for promotion from the date their juniors have been promoted. Resident Commissioner recommended the case of petitioners to Principal Secretary (Schedule Tribe Development) on 31.10.2006. Additional Director (Schedule Tribe Development) also recommended the case of petitioners to Director of Education on 16.11.2006. In sequel to recommendations made by these two authorities, petitioners were promoted to the post of Peon-cum-Chowkidar vide order dated 22.7.2008. In the interest of justice, petitioners were permitted to place office order dated 22.7.2008 on record.

(2.) Though petitioners have been promoted as Peon-cum-Chowkidar (regular) vide office order 22.7.2008, however, their promotion has been termed as `notional'. In other words, they have not been held entitle to monetary benefits from the respective dates i.e. 1.9.1998 and 1.8.2000. The Court is of the considered view that petitioners ought to have been granted monetary benefits from the dates of their promotion. Petitioners were always ready and willing to work on higher post. It is only due to illegal action of respondents that the case of petitioners for promotion has not been considered from the due date. In these circumstances, the principle of "no work no pay" shall not apply.

(3.) Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others versus K.V. Jankiraman and others, (1991) 4 SCC 109 have held as under: