IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 3968/2008 (OA No. 2115/96) Date of Decision : March 2, 2009 Sh. Sarwan Singh Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board & another Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner prayed for the following reliefs:- (i) That the Respondent Board may be directed to place the applicant in the right position in the seniority list of Section Officer and further to promote him as Section Officer w.e.f. 5.4.1994 when his junior Shri Sohan Singh, respondent No.2 was promoted. (ii) That the Respondent Board may be directed to allow all the consequential as well as monetary benefits which he was entitled in Circle Scale Superintendent and Section Officer according to pay scales applicable at that time. Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 (iii) That the salary of the applicant may also be fixed equivalent to Smt. Kamla Devi the next senior of the applicant. (iv) That the cost of the application may be granted in favour of the applicant. With the passage of time and in view of the reply filed by the respondent the petition has partly become infructuous as during the pendency of the petition the petitioner was promoted (notionally) in the grade of Head Clerk/Head Assistant/ Assistant/I.A. w.e.f. 21.1.1980 and Circle Scale Superintendent w.e.f. 8.12.1988. Post of Circle Scale Superintendent stands redesignated as Superintendent Grade-I/Section Officer w.e.f. 8.5.1996. The applicant has been assigned seniority in the grade of Head Clerk/Head Assistant/Assistant/I.A. and Circle Scale Superintendent at the appropriate places. He has also held the post of Section Officer/Superintendent Grade-I. It is a matter of record that both the petitioner and respondent No.2 belonged to the same reserved category and respondent No.2 was junior to the petitioner. Even though notional promotion was accorded to the petitioner but however, no monetary benefits have been granted to him. From the reply it is not evident as to why same was not done. Person junior to the petitioner having been promoted and respondent No. 1 having rectified its mistake subsequently, I see no reason as to why monetary benefits be not granted to the petitioner. 3 The Apex Court in State of Kerala & Ors. V. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai {2007 (6) SCC 524}, has held as under: “So far as the situation with regard to monetary benefits with retrospective promotion is concerned, that depends upon case to case. There are various facets which have to be considered. Sometimes in a case of departmental enquiry or in criminal case it depends on the authorities to grant full back wages or 50 percent of back wages looking to the nature of delinquency involved in the matter or in criminal cases where the incumbent has been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt or full acquittal. 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 sometimes 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 their being any change in law or some other supervening factors. However, it is very difficult to set down any hard-and-fast rule. The principle of ‘no work no pay’ cannot be accepted as Rule of thumb and there are exceptions where courts have granted monetary benefits also.” In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, monetary or otherwise, from the date of his notional promotion. 4 The amount be paid within a period of eight weeks from today. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. March 2, 2009 (PK)