Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravinder Singh Saroha vs Haryana Power Generation Corporation ... on 12 May, 2026
CWP-8395 & 9581-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
1. CWP-8395-2025 (O&M)
Ravinder Singh Saroha
... Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited and others
... Respondents
2. CWP-9581-2025 (O&M)
Anish Kumar Gupta
... Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited and others
... Respondents
Reserved on: 22.04.2026
Pronounced on: 12.05.2026
Uploaded on: 12.05.2026
Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced ? No
Whether full judgment is pronounced ? Yes
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. B.S. Rana, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Nayandeep Rana, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CWP-8395-2025).
VISHNU
2026.05.12 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-8395 & 9581-2025 -2-
Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate and
Mr. Arvind Galav, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CWP-9581-2025).
Mr. Prince Singh, Advocate
for the respondents (in both cases).
*******
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
1. With the consent of all the parties, the aforementioned writ petitions are taken up together and are being decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from CWP-8395-2025.
2. Present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of the office order dated 09.02.2024 (Annexure P-8) to the extent of denying the petitioner(s) the arrears and other financial benefits on the principle of "No Work No Pay", although they have been granted promotion from deemed dates as Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 23.02.2005, Assistant Executive Engineer w.e.f. 26.06.2009 and Executive Engineer w.e.f. 11.04.2013, in pursuance of the revised seniority list dated 19.01.2024 and seniority list dated 09.02.2024, for the period ranging from 15.08.1998 to 31.12.2022. A further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant arrears of pay to the petitioner(s) from the date, on which their juniors were promoted to the VISHNU 2026.05.12 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-8395 & 9581-2025 -3- respective posts till the date of their actual promotion i.e. 09.02.2024, along with interest @9% per annum on delayed payment. CONTENTIONS
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner(s), inter alia, contends that the petitioner(s) were promoted beyond their due dates on account of administrative lapse on the part of the respondents. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed upon a judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA-1515-2015 titled as Satpal Singh and others Vs. Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited and others, decided on 09.08.2018.
3.1 He further submits that once there is an admitted failure on the part of the respondent-Corporation in not adhering to the guidelines, particularly with regard to preparation of the ranking list on 1st day of January of each year in terms of Clause 2 of the notification dated 20.10.1993, the exercise having been undertaken for the first time only on 15.03.2006, the eligible employees, including the petitioner(s), cannot be made to suffer for such administrative lethargy.
3.2 Learned senior counsel further submits that in Sukhdev Singh and others Vs. Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited and others, LPA- 37-2016, the Division Bench of this Court has considered the implications of the notification dated 20.10.1993 as well as the guidelines regarding preparation of the ranking list on 1st day of January each year, of the eligible VISHNU 2026.05.12 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-8395 & 9581-2025 -4- employees, possessing the requisite qualifications for promotion to the next higher post. It is submitted that the Engineering Subordinates, who acquire the qualification of A.M.I.E./B.E. along with five years of experience become eligible for promotion and juniors, who acquired such qualification much later than the petitioner(s) cannot be permitted to steal a march over them. 3.3 It is thus contended that the petitioner(s) are entitled to accelerated promotion in 12½% quota. By interpreting the amended Regulation 9(1)(b)(ii) of the Punjab State Electricity Board, Service of Engineers (Civil) Recruitment Regulations, 1965, as applicable to the erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board and now the respondent-Corporation, it has been clarified that the requisite service of five years is to be counted from the date of acquisition of the qualification. Further, a direction was issued to prepare the ranking list every year on 1st January in terms of Clause 2 of the guidelines dated 20.10.1993 and to make promotions strictly in accordance therewith. In purported compliance of the aforesaid directions, the petitioner(s) have been granted retrospective promotions, as discernible from the impugned order dated 09.02.2024 (Annexure P-8). The said order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the respondent-Corporation by filing a Special Leave Petition, however, the directions issued by the Division Bench in Sukhdev Singh's case (supra) have attained finality. 3.4 It is the grievance of the petitioner(s) that although notional benefits have been granted by assigning deemed dates of promotion, the VISHNU 2026.05.12 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-8395 & 9581-2025 -5- respondents have denied actual financial benefits by invoking the principle of "No Work No Pay". It is contended that this is not a case, where the petitioner(s), by their own volition, chose not to discharge duties of the higher post; rather they were deprived of their rightful promotion due to failure on the part of the respondents to adhere to the prescribed procedure under the instructions dated 20.10.1993. As such, grant of promotion without corresponding financial benefits is stated to be contrary to the settled position of law. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the judgment rendered in Amrik Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2026 NCPHHC 34030, wherein it has been held that an employee, who has been unjustly denied promotion due to procedural lapses on the part of the employer, is entitled to salary and other consequential benefits from the date their juniors were promoted.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that the case of the petitioner(s) is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Paluru Ramkrishnaniah Vs. Union of India, 1989 (2) SCC 541. It is submitted that it is a settled principle of service law that there can be no pay for no work, on the ground that the employee has not actually performed the duties of the higher post, even though retrospective promotion may have been granted. Learned counsel further submits that the benefit of notional seniority has already been extended to the petitioner(s) by way of refixation of their pay. He relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. O.P. Gupta etc., 1996(2) SCT 294, VISHNU 2026.05.12 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-8395 & 9581-2025 -6- wherein the principle laid down in Paluru Ramkrishnaniah's case (supra) has been reiterated.
4.1 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner(s) remained indolent in agitating their rights and did not approach this Court at the relevant time. It is contended that the instructions dated 20.10.1993 could not be implemented earlier on account of pending litigation and were implemented for the first time on 15.03.2006. As such, the petitioner(s) have no vested right to claim financial benefits of retrospective promotion and at best, they are entitled only to notional fixation of pay, which has already been granted. 4.2 It is further contended that the petitioner(s), who had earlier approached this Court by filing CWP-18198-1997 titled as Dharam Pal and others Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board and others (Annexure P-5), had not made any prayer with regard to financial benefits and no such relief was granted by this Court. The impugned order therein was set aside and the respondent-Corporation was directed to consider the matter afresh. As such, the claim now raised in the present petition is stated to be barred by the principle of constructive res judicata.
4.3 In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submit that the petitioners have been continuously agitating their claim and the judgment rendered in the first writ petition i.e. CWP-18198-1997 never denied the petitioners their rights accruing from the correct interpretation of the rule; rather it merely directed the respondents to consider the matter regarding VISHNU 2026.05.12 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-8395 & 9581-2025 -7- impugned promotion list, in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Moreover, the Division Bench of this Court in CACP-4-2024 has granted liberty to the petitioner(s) and since the impugned order dated (Annexure P-8) was passed only on 09.02.2024, the petitioner(s) are entitled to claim the financial benefits flowing from the deemed date of promotion, there being no order by this Court denying the same.
ANALYSIS
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records with their able assistance. The rival submissions urged on behalf of the parties regarding the observation of learned Single Bench and Division Bench of this court in contempt proceedings on merits are not relevant to the lis and as such, omitted from consideration by this Court in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others Vs. Chunilal Nanda and others, 2006 (5) SCC 399.
6. Admittedly, it stands unequivocally established by the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Satpal Singh's case (supra) that the petitioners were denied promotion on account of the absolute fault of the respondents. The Division Bench categorically held that for the negligence on the part of the department, the officers (the petitioners) are not to suffer. The said judgment has since attained finality.
7. As such, the issue that emerges before this Court to deal with is whether an employee, who has been granted retrospective (deemed) promotion VISHNU 2026.05.12 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-8395 & 9581-2025 -8- solely due to the administrative failure/lapses of the employer and not due to any fault of the employee, is entitled to full consequential monetary benefits/arrears of salary, from the date of such deemed promotion, or is the employer justified in restricting the benefit to only notional fixation of pay on the principle of 'No Work, No Pay'?
Proviso to No Work, No Pay Rule.
8. A three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman, 1991 INSC 209, while speaking through Justice P.B. Sawant observed as under: -
"25. We are not much impressed by the contentions advanced on behalf of the authorities. The normal rule of "no work no pay" is not applicable to cases such as the present one where the employee although he is willing to work is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his. This is not a case where the employee remains away from work for his own reasons, although the work is offered to him. It is for this reason that F.R. 17(1) will also be inapplicable to such cases."
8.1 Further, a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala Vs. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai, 2007 (6) SCC 524, while speaking through Justice A.K. Mathur observed as under: -
"3. .........Sometimes in the matter when the person is superseded and he has challenged the same before Court or Tribunal and he succeeds in that and direction is given for reconsideration of his case from the date persons junior to him were appointed, in that case the Court may grant sometime full benefits with retrospective effect and sometimes it may not. Particularly when the administration has wrongly denied his due then in that case he should be given full benefits including monetary benefit subject to there being any change in law or VISHNU 2026.05.12 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-8395 & 9581-2025 -9- some other supervening factors. However, it is very difficult to set down any hard and fast rule. The principle 'no work no pay' cannot be accepted as a rule of thumb. There are exceptions where courts have granted monetary benefits also."
8.2 Further, a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar Vs. Union of India, 2015 INSC 538, while speaking through Justice R. Banumathi observed as under: -
"3. We are conscious that even in the absence of statutory provision, normal rule is "no work no pay". In appropriate cases, a court of law may take into account all the facts in their entirety and pass an appropriate order in consonance with law. The principle of "no work no pay" would not be attracted where the respondents were in fault in not considering the case of the appellant for promotion and not allowing the appellant to work on a post of Naib Subedar carrying higher pay scale. In the facts of the present case when the appellant was granted promotion w.e.f. 01.01.2000 with the ante-dated seniority from 01.08.1997 and maintaining his seniority alongwith his batchmates, it would be unjust to deny him higher pay and allowances in the promotional position of Naib Subedar."
8.3 A two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J. N. Srivastava Vs. Union of India, 1998 (9) SCC 559 observed as under: -
"3......It was submitted by learned senior counsel for the respondents authorities that no back salary should be allowed to the appellant as the appellant did not work and therefore, on the principle of 'no work no pay', this amount should not be given to the appellant. This submission of learned senior counsel does not bear scrutiny as the appellant was always ready and willing to work but the respondents did not allow him to work after January 31, 1990. The respondents are directed to make available all the requisite monetary benefits to the appellant as per the present order within a period of 8 weeks on the receipt of copy of this order at their end. Office shall send the same to the respondents at the earliest..."
VISHNU 2026.05.12 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-8395 & 9581-2025 -10- 8.4 As such, the principle of "No Work, No Pay" is not an inflexible or mechanical rule and has no application, where an employee, despite being ready and willing to discharge duties, is unlawfully prevented from doing so on account of the acts, omissions or illegal decisions of the employer. In such circumstances, denial of salary or consequential monetary benefits would amount to penalizing the employee for no fault attributable to him. The Courts have repeatedly held that where the administration wrongfully withholds promotion, denies consideration in accordance with law, or otherwise prevents an employee from working on the post to which he was legally entitled, the employee cannot subsequently be deprived of the financial benefits attached thereto by invoking the doctrine of "No Work, No Pay". Rather, the employer must bear the consequences of its own illegality and the employee is entitled to restoration of all consequential monetary benefits unless exceptional or supervening circumstances justify denial thereof. Grant of monetary benefits with grant of retrospective promotion
9. A two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. K.V.L. Narasimha Rao, 1999 (2) INSC 684, speaking through Justice S. Rajendra Babu observed as under: -
"5. In normal circumstances when the retrospective promotions are effected all benefits flowing therefrom, including monetary benefits, must be extended to an officer who has been denied promotion earlier. However, on the reorganisation of States a large number of officers stood allotted from different States to the newly formed State and their services had to be integrated on various principles and several agencies were involved in the same.
VISHNU 2026.05.12 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-8395 & 9581-2025 -11- The steps to be taken thereto were one of formulation of principles, publication of a provisional inter-State seniority list, inviting objections thereto, consideration of those objections in consultation with the Central Government and acting upon its directions to bring the seniority list in conformity with such directions. This entire exercise involved a good deal of time and gave rise to extraordinary situation. It is in those circumstances that Rules contained in the Fundamental Rule 26 or Rule 40 of the Hyderabad Civil Services Regulations have been framed. As a matter of fact, rules of erstwhile State regarding seniority are not applicable in the new State as allottees are governed by the Act and seniority is finalised therein. Even so, we do not see that there is any impediment to frame new rules affecting conditions of service of such allottees but in conformity with the Act. Surely new rules cannot be brushed aside by saying that they are not applicable to cases coming under the Act. There is no contention either in the High Court or before us that they are framed in contravention of the Act. In this background, we fail to see as to why the Rules are not applicable to the respondents as held by the High Court."
9.1 A two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Ahmed Vs. Nizam Sugar Factory, 2004 (11) SCC 210, observed as under: -
"5. We thus find that while disposing of the appeal, nothing was said about the present appellant, though the same principle was equally rather more applicable to him as the appellant was even senior to Indumati Ganesh but she alone was given benefit. He was very much in service when the promotion was given to Lakshmipathi Raju on 25-6-1992. He continued in service and retired only on 31-5-1995. The learned single Judge had rendered the judgment on 27-10-1995 giving the benefit of the arrears of difference of pay to the appellant which, in our view, could not be faulted with. We feel that if the benefit allowed to the appellant by the learned single Judge was meant to be disallowed by the Division Bench, it should have specifically dealt with that matter. It is true that he could not be given promotion on the date the judgment was rendered by the learned single Judge or the Division Bench as the Smt. Indumati Ganesh was the senior VISHNU 2026.05.12 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-8395 & 9581-2025 -12- most person available for promotion, by reason of the fact that the appellant had retired on 31-5-1995 but it would not mean that he could be deprived of the difference of salary during the period he was denied the benefit of promotion, i.e., from 25-6- 1992 till date of retirement. That direction was issued by the learned single Judge and on the reasoning adopted by the Division Bench for making the benefit available to Smt. Indumati Ganesh, there would be no reason to deny the said benefit to the appellant. At this stage, it would also be pertinent to mention that the respondent-Sugar Factory had filed the SLP against the judgment of the Division Bench which has been dismissed.
6. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the discussion held above, we allow the appeal and provide that as per the direction given by the learned single Judge, the present appellant, Mohd. Ahmed, shall be paid difference of salary by the respondent No. 1 at the earliest. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench stands modified accordingly to the extent mentioned above."
9.2 A Division Bench of this Court in Vidya Parkash Harnal Vs. State of Haryana, 1995 (3) SCT 785, while precisely dealing with an identical issue observed as under: -
"7. Similarly, the argument that the petitioner was not entitled to the grant of emoluments on the principle of 'No work, no pay' is apparently mis- conceived and based upon wrong notions of law. If a civil servant is not offered the work to which he was legally entitled, he cannot be deprived of the wages for the post to which he subsequently is held entitled to. Permitting such a course to be adopted would be encouraging the imposition of double penalty, that is, firstly by declining the civil servant his right of promotion and secondly by depriving him of the emoluments to which he would have been entitled to upon promotion which subsequently is considered in his favour. Deprivation to work against the post to which a civil servant is entitled on promotion is always at the risk and responsibility of the State and cannot be made a basis for depriving such a civil servant of the VISHNU 2026.05.12 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-8395 & 9581-2025 -13- emoluments to which he was entitled, had he been promoted in accordance with the rules at the time when he became eligible for such promotion. The Courts cannot ignore the magnitude of the sufferings and the pains to which a civil servant is subjected on account of deprivation of the monetary benefits particularly in this age of skyrocketing prices and non-availability of essential requirements of livelihood. The Court cannot shut its eyes and forget the holocast of economic deprivation to the petitioner and his dependents. Such a deprivation might have upset the career of the dependents, depriving the society of the services of such youth and budding dependents or children of the petitioner. The executive once being satisfied that a civil servant was entitled to the promotion with retrospective effect cannot deprive him of the benefits of salary accruing on account of such promotion from an early date without assigning valid, cogent and specific reasons. The order impugned in this case by which the petitioner/appellant was deprived of his right to claim back wages is admittedly non-speaking without assigning any justification or cogent and specific reasons."
9.3 Conclusively, it is equally well settled that retrospective promotion ordinarily carries with it all consequential benefits flowing therefrom, including pay fixation, arrears of salary and other monetary benefits attached to the promotional post. The Courts have consistently recognized that once an employee is found entitled to promotion from an earlier date, the grant of notional promotion alone would not constitute complete restitution, particularly where the employee was wrongfully deprived of the promotional post during service. Denial of actual monetary benefits in such cases would amount to perpetuating the prejudice caused by the illegal action of the employer and rewarding the administration for its own wrong. Though, in exceptional situations involving peculiar administrative exigencies, statutory VISHNU 2026.05.12 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-8395 & 9581-2025 -14- restrictions or other supervening considerations, the Courts may mould the relief and restrict arrears, the normal rule remains that an employee, who has been unjustly denied promotion, is entitled to all consequential service and financial benefits from the date, on which such promotion ought to have been granted.
OBSERVATION
10. It thus emerges from a conspectus of the above discussion that the principle of "No Work, No Pay" cannot be applied in a mechanical or abstract manner, particularly in cases where an employee has been wrongfully denied promotion due to administrative lapses attributable solely to the employer. Especially, where an employee is willing to work but is kept away from discharging duties for no fault of his, the principle of 'No Work, No Pay' would have no application. Moreover, denial of promotional benefits on account of the employer's default cannot be used by the employer to deprive the employee of the monetary benefits attached to such promotion. Moreover, denial of arrears in such circumstances would amount to inflicting a double penalty upon the employee.
CONCLUSION
11. In view of the above, both the aforementioned petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 09.02.2024 (Annexure P-8) is hereby quashed to the extent that it denies the petitioner's arrears and other financial benefits. The respondents are directed to modify the impugned order VISHNU 2026.05.12 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-8395 & 9581-2025 -15- (Annexure P-8) accordingly, granting the petitioners, arrears of pay and all consequential financial benefits arising from their deemed promotions to the posts along with interest @6% per annum to be calculated from deemed date of its accrual till its actual realization.
12. The entire exercise must be completed expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
13. The pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
[ HARPREET SINGH BRAR ]
12.05.2026 JUDGE
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
VISHNU
2026.05.12 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh