Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdev Singh Randhawa vs State Of Punjab & Another on 25 April, 2013
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 9751 of 2012
Date of Decision: 25.04.2013
Sukhdev Singh Randhawa
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & another
............ Respondents
*****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present:- Mr. Karminder Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harsimran Singh Sethi, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
*****
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.(ORAL)
Petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing of the impugned order dated 23.4.2012 (Annexure P-6) vide which arrears for the period for which he has not worked as Assistant Public Relations Officer, thereafter on promotion as Deputy Public Relations Officer and thereafter, the Deputy Director on the ground that he has not worked on the said posts.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that this order cannot sustain in the light of judgment passed by the Court in CWP No. 8592 of 1996 titled as "Sukhdev Singh Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and another" decided on 19.5.2009 (Annexure P-2) wherein specific directions were issued by this Court holding the petitioner entitled to all consequential benefits which would include arrears. Counsel states that although notional promotions have been granted to the petitioner but the arrears for the period CWP No. 9751 of 2012 2 for which he was deprived of working on the post cannot be denied to him because of an action of the respondents which was found to be not in consonance with law. He accordingly contends that the impugned order be set aside and the direction be issued to the respondents to release the arrears to the petitioner within some specified time.
Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of arrears on the principle of 'No work, No Pay' as has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of "Palanu Ramkrishnaiah and others Versus Union of India and another"
AIR 1990 SC 167. He accordingly content6s that the writ petition deserves be dismissed.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.
Petitioner was promoted as an Assistant Public Relations Officer vide order dated 14.6.1986. He was reverted vide order dated 15.6.1987. Petitioner challenged the order of his reversion by filling CWP No.3727 of 1987. The said order was stayed by this Court on 29.6.1987. With the withdrawal of the reversion order, the writ petition was disposed of as infructuous vide order dated 11.1.1988. Petitioner continued to work on the promotional post when order dated 26.4.1996 was passed withdrawing his promotion order as an Assistant Public Relations Officer. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No. 8592 of 1996 titled as "Sukhdev Singh Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and another", which was decided by this Court vide judgment dated 19.5.2009 (Annexure P-2). The operative part of the judgment reads as follows:
"In view of the above circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable in law and is liable to be quashed. I order CWP No. 9751 of 2012 3 accordingly, As a consequence of the quashment of the reversion order, the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. No costs."
Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the State against the said order LPA No.1316 of 2009 titled as "State of Punjab and another vs. Sukhdev Singh Randhwa" was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 28.1.2010 (Annexure P-4). Special Leave Petition was preferred by the State or Punjab against the said order i.e. SLP (Civil) No.19148 of 2010 which was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 6.1.2012 by imposing `50,000/- as costs. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 23.4.2012 (Annexure P-6) has been passed by the respondents granting him the national benefit of promotion as per his entitlement, however, arrears have been denied to him only on the ground that he has not worked on the said posts as has been specified in the order.
Counsel for the petitioner has rightly asserted that in the light of the order dated 19.5.2009 passed by this court, wherein the petitioner has been entitled to all consequential benefits and arrears to the petitioner should also have been paid.
I am in agreement with the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 23.4.2012 (Annexure P-6) denying the petitioner arrears for the period 18.10.1999 to 7.12.2008 and 10.2.2009 to 4.12.2009 is hereby set aside. Petitioner is held entitled to the arrears of the said period which shall be released to him within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
25.04.2013 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 'sp' JUDGE