IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition (T) No. 14443 of 2008 Judgment reserved on: 5.7.2011. Date of decision: 11.7.2011 Hans Raj Sharma …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, J The prayer made in the petition is that respondents may be directed to pay the petitioner financial benefits from the date of his promotion to the post of A.S.I. with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 2. The facts in brief are that Ramesh Chander, Shashi Pal, Hukam Singh, Rameshwar Ram, Puran Chand and Purshotam Chand who were at serial Nos.110, 112, 116, 122, 128 and 131 respectively in the seniority list Annexure A-3 were juniors to petitioner but they were promoted to the post of A.S.I. w.e.f. January, Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… 1999. The petitioner was at serial No.103 in seniority list Annexure A-3 and was fully eligible for promotion as A.S.I., but he was ignored by respondents and he was promoted as A.S.I. in June, 1999. 3. The petitioner made representations to the respondents which were rejected by the respondents. The petitioner again represented and he was given promotion on notional basis w.e.f. 16.1.1999 vide order dated 11.3.2005 from the date his juniors were promoted. The petitioner made representation to respondent No.3 on 23.3.2005 for giving him financial benefits as A.S.I. w.e.f. 16.1.1999. The petitioner made other representation also. The petitioner received order dated 16.3.2006 from respondent No.3, rejecting the representation of the petitioner on the ground that he could not be granted the financial benefits w.e.f. 16.1.1999 as he had not worked as A.S..I w.e.f. 16.1.1999, hence petition. 4. The respondents No.1 to 4 have filed joint reply, in which it has been stated that on subsequent representation the matter was re-examined and the petitioner was ordered to be approved for promotion w.e.f. 11.1.1999, the date when his juniors were approved for promotion to the rank of A.S.I. instead of 3.6.1999. The petitioner was promoted as A.S.I. w.e.f. 11.6.1999. The petitioner has been given seniority over his juniors. He is not entitled for financial benefits w.e.f. 16.1.1999 to 31.5.1999 in view of FR 17. The respondents have thus prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied State of Kerala and …3… others vs. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai, (2007) 6 SCC 524 and has submitted that promotion to the post of ASI was wrongly denied to the petitioner by the respondents. The respondents cannot take benefits of their own wrong under the shelter of FR 17. The learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that petitioner is not entitled to financial benefits to the post of A.S.I. during the period in which he actually did not work as A.S.I. 6. In State of Kerala and others vs. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai, the Supreme Court has held that 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 when the administration has wrongly denied the dues, in that case he should be given full benefits including monetary benefit subject to there being any change in law or some other supervening factors. 7. In the present case the petitioner had been representing against his supersession. The respondents initially took the stand that the petitioner was not entitled to promotion as an A.S.I. from the date his juniors were promoted but later on they found that their stand not to promote the petitioner from the date his juniors were promoted was not sustainable, they gave him promotion to the post of A.S.I. from the date his juniors were promoted. However, financial benefits of the post of A.S.I. from January, 1999 to June 1999 were declined to the petitioner on the ground that petitioner had not worked on the …4… post of A.S.I. during that period. The respondents have taken the help of FR 17(1) in denying financial benefit to the petitioner. 8. The respondents have admitted that petitioner was wrongly denied promotion to the post of A.S.I. from the date his juniors were promoted and later on rectified their mistake. FR 17(1) provides that an officer shall begin to draw the pay and allowances attached to his tenure of a post with effect from the date when he assumes the duties of that post, and shall cease to draw them as soon as he ceases to discharge those duties. The respondents denied the petitioner to assume the duties to the post of A.S.I. by not providing him when he was due for promotion. The respondents corrected the mistake and gave promotion to the petitioner from the back date. The petitioner got the opportunity to assume the duties of the post of A.S.I. when he was promoted as A.S.I. The petitioner cannot be blamed for not assuming the duties of A.S.I. when he was later on promoted from back date. The respondents cannot take benefit of their own wrong. The petitioner is entitled to financial benefit including pay etc. of the post of A.S.I. from January 1999 to June 1999, if not already paid to him. 9. In view of above petition is allowed, it is held that petitioner is entitled to all financial benefits including pay etc. of the post of A.S.I. from January 1999 to June 1999, which shall be paid to petitioner, if not paid earlier, after adjusting the dues already paid to him of this period within a period of three months from the date of supply of a copy of this judgment by petitioner to competent …5… authority, failing which the respondents shall pay 9% simple interest per annum to petitioner on such arrears. July 11,2011 ( Kuldip Singh ), (sks) Judge.