ROSHAN LAL ATWAL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner joined as Inspector Food & Civil Supplies in the year 1973. However, a person junior to him, one, Shri Ram Swaroop, was, accorded seniority above the petitioner by the respondents' reflecting, his, date of promotion as 27.2.1973 instead of 12.7.1973. Though, the respondents at the initial stage, omitted, to, correct the clerical mistake, sequelling the affording of promotion to Ram Sarup, as, District Food Inspector, on 31.10.1986, yet it was subsequently ordered. OA No. 1764 of 1995, titled as Jagdish Chand Chauhan versus State of H.P. was disposed of by the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal which constrained, the respondents, to constitute a review DPC on 31.10.2007. The review DPC approved the according of the benefit of notional promotion, to the petitioner w.e.f. 20.8.1994. In aftermath, a fresh seniority list was drawn up, in, which petitioner has been ranked senior to Ram Swaroop. It is apparent that Ram Swaroop, the person junior to the petitioner was shown senior to the petitioner. In consequence, thereto, said Ram Swaroop was promoted, as, District Inspector in the year 1986. However the said mistake of the respondents, in, affording out of turn promotion to Ram Swaroop was rectified by the respondents. Apart from the fact that extantly Ram Swaroop has been shown below the petitioner, in, the seniority list, besides, apart from the fact, that the mistake committed by the respondents in giving out of turn promotion has now been rectified. Nonetheless the fact of review DPC having concluded that the petitioner was eligible for promotion from the year 1994, yet whether, hence, the petitioner, is, entitled of all consequential benefits or only to notional promotion w.e.f. 1994 as afforded in his favour by the review DPC, is, the moot and acid determinative facet of the case. It is canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that when undeniably and uncontrovertibly , the petitioner, if, held to be eligible for promotion by the review DPC in the year 1994, he could not have been merely, hence, given simplicitor notional promotion, without affording him all consequential benefits. Further, it is argued that in case, vested rights accrued, in his favour in the year 1986 for promotion to the higher post or rank, then, his holding a vested right to hold a post in the year in which he was held entitled to hold it, even if, much prior to the date of rendition of a decision, on, his right of promotion, by, Review DPC, ought to constrains this court, to, conclude that the vested right as initially accrued, ought to prod the granting of all consequential benefits, at the very stage of its ripening, in favour of the petitioner or on its accrual thereto. However, while dis -concurring with his submission, this Court holds that on the accrual of a right in favour of the petitioner, then, all the appurtenant/attached benefits fastened to it or tagged to such vestment could may well have come to be denied to the petitioner, as, tenably done by the Review DPC, for the reasons that petitioner had not worked against the post since 1994 uptill date, hence, on the principle of no pay for no work, he could not be granted the salary against the promotional post with retrospective effect. However, in case, he is entitled to any other benefits, the respondents are directed to consider his claim to release of such benefits, so as to, extantly bring his salary at par with his juniors.

(2.) IN these circumstances, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also, the pending applications, if any.