Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. Rohitasw Yadav vs State Of Haryana And Others on 23 May, 2012
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
C.W.P. No.11157 OF 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
*****
C.W.P. No.11157 OF 2011
DATE OF DECISION : 23.05.2012
Dr. Rohitasw Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.
Present : Mr. Abhishek Sethi, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana
for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate,
for respondent No.4.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing of the order dated 09.06.2011 (Annexure P-1) vide which his name was ignored for promotion to the post of Civil Surgeon on the ground that a departmental proceedings were pending against him.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that in the light of the reply filed by the respondents wherein petitioner has been granted promotion vide order dated 29.06.2011 with effect from 09.06.2011, the date when junior to the petitioner was promoted to the post of Civil Surgeon, the claim qua his promotion has been rendered infructuous, however, a clause has been added therein that he would not be entitled to arrears for the period from 09.06.2011 till 29.06.2011 and the ground taken for non- grant of arrears for this period is that he has not worked on the post of Civil Surgeon. This the counsel for the petitioner contends is contrary to the Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in Ram Pal Vs. State of Haryana, 2003(2) S.C.T. 984 as also a Division Bench judgment C.W.P. No.11157 OF 2011 -2- passed in the case of Karnail Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, 2006(3) S.C.T. 276.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has submitted that the principle of 'No Work No Pay' has been made applicable to the claim of the petitioner. As a matter of fact, petitioner has not worked on the said post and in support of this contention he has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court passed in the cases of State of Haryana Vs. O.P.Gupta etc, 1996(2) S.C.T. 294 and Union of India Vs. B.M.Jha, 2008(1) SLR 488. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of this Court passed in C.W.P. No.4770 of 2002 titled as 'Narender Singh Vs. Union of India and others' decided on 31.08.2010.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case.
Dealing with the judgments, which have been referred to by the counsel for the respondents first, the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. B.M.Jha (supra) was where specific statutory rules disentitled an employee for grant of arrears in case he has not worked on a particular post. It is on that basis the claim of the arrears was denied to the petitioner. In case of State of Haryana Vs. O.P.Gupta etc. (supra), arrears were not granted on the ground that the retrospective date of promotion had come into force because of re-casting of the seniority and on that basis the Supreme Court had not granted the benefit, as claim for promotion was not crystallised till the re-casting of the seniority. The judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Narender Singh (supra) is contrary to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Pal (supra) as also in the case of Karnail Singh (supra) wherein this Court had while considering the C.W.P. No.11157 OF 2011 -3- case of similar nature has held that where the employee is deprived of and is not allowed promotion on account of non-application of the sealed cover procedure because of the departmental proceedings pending against him that cannot be a reason for denial of monetary benefit to the higher post to which promotion was granted to him by way of deemed date of promotion.
In the light of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Karnail Singh (supra) as well in the case of Ram Pal (supra), the present writ petition deserves to be allowed with regard to the grant of arrears for the period from 09.06.2011 till 29.06.2011.
In view of the above the order dated 29.06.2011 depriving the petitioner, the arrears for the period from 09.06.2011 till 29.06.2011 is hereby set aside. The arrears be released to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
Petition stands disposed of.
23.05.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) adhikari JUDGE