IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 5417 of 2008. Decided on 30th November, 2010. _____________________________________________________ Gurdial Singh. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner is seeking promotion to the higher post w.e.f. 28.02.1986 on adhoc basis. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has produced the records of the D.P.C. which was convened in the year 1986. The Court has perused the record. The petitioner was not found suitable by the duly constituted Departmental and Promotion Committee. Moreover, the petitioner has not made those persons as party, which according to him were junior to him but promoted to the higher post on adhoc basis. It is settled law by now that in seniority matters, the persons who are likely to be affected by the out-come of the judgment, are necessary parties. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - 2. However, fact of the matter is that subsequently the petitioner was promoted on regular basis vide Annexure A-6, dated 16th July, 1996 w.e.f. 31.03.1992. But, the petitioner has not been paid any monetary benefits w.e.f. 31.03.1992 to 16.07.1996. Once the petitioner has been promoted on regular basis, he was bound to be paid the monetary benefits w.e.f. 31.03.1992. The petitioner was always ready and willing to discharge the duties of higher post. In other words, the petitioner has been prevented from discharging the duties of the post of H.P.F.S. This issue is no more res integra in view of the law laid by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others versus K.V. Jankiraman and others, (1991) 4 SCC 109. Their Lordships have held as under: “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.” 3. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned vice counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner has not been granted the Senior Scale to which he was entitled after putting eight years’ service. The Court is of the considered view that the - 3 - petitioner was to be considered for Senior Scale immediately after completion of eight years’ service w.e.f. 31.03.1992. 4. Consequently, the petition is partly allowed. There shall be a direction to the respondents to release the monetary benefits to the petitioner w.e.f. 31.03.1992 and thereafter consider his case for the release of Senior Scale immediately after completion of eight years of service w.e.f. 31.03.1992, if not already paid. The needful shall be done within a period of eight weeks after the production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge November 30, 2010. (bhupender) - 4 -