ANGAT RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was promoted on the basis of recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee to the post of Superintendent Grade-I from the post of Superintendent Grade-II. However, petitioner has not been granted monetary benefits as per notification dated 17.7.2000. Petitioner made representation vide Annexure A-5 on 17.10.2000 seeking monetary benefits. The representation made by petitioner vide Annexure A-5 was ultimately rejected after a period of 7 years.

(2.) Ms. Ranjana Parmar has placed on record copy of rejection order dated 17.10.2007. The same is permitted to be taken on record in the interest of justice. A bare perusal of letter dated 17.10.2007 reveals that no reasons have been assigned while rejecting the representation preferred by petitioner. However, the fact of the matter is that petitioner has been prevented from discharging his duties of the post of Superintendent Grade-I and in view of this 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: