IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 426 of 2008. Decided on: 23.03.2010. __________________________________________________________ Harnam Singh. … Petitioner. Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Another. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): The petitioner was promoted as Yard Master on regular basis in the pay-scale of Rs.5400-8925 on 22nd January, 2008. The promotion order was issued by the Managing Director of the respondent- Corporation, however, the Regional Manager of the respondent- Corporation has withheld the same on account of some recoveries to be effected from the petitioner and in the meantime, the petitioner retired on 31st January, 2008. It was not at all fair on part of the Regional Manager of the respondent-Corporation to withhold the promotion order of the petitioner, dated 22nd January, 2008. He was required to be promoted on the basis of letter dated 22nd January, 2008. This inaction on part of the Regional Manager has deprived the petitioner the benefits of higher 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - status and salary. In case the petitioner had been permitted to work on the basis of letter dated 22nd January, 2008 on the higher post, i.e. Yard Master, his retiral benefits were bound to be worked out in the higher pay-scale. The petitioner was always ready and willing to work on the higher post of Yard Master. He has been prevented from doing so by the Regional Manager by withholding his promotion order. In view of this the principles of “No work no pay” will not apply. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others versus K.V. Jankiraman and others, (1991) 4 SCC 109 have held as under (para 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.” It is also made clear that the effecting of recoveries from the petitioner has nothing to do with the promotion to the higher post of Yard Master, because the same was an independent cause of action. He could be separately dealt with so far as effecting the recoveries is concerned. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has apprised the Court that in fact the entire amount of recovery has been waived off. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. It is declared that the petitioner will be deemed to have been promoted on the post of Yard - 3 - Master in the pay-scale of Rs.5400-8925 and retired in the same capacity on 31st January, 2008. The respondents are further directed to pay and release the pensionary benefits to the petitioner of the post of Yard Master in the pay-scale of Rs.5400-8925. This be done within a period of ten weeks from today. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. March 23, 2010. (sck).