IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 1259 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 29, 2011 Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited and others ...Appellants Versus Satya Pal Nagpal and another ...Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE . JUSTICE . JUSTICE . JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Birender Singh Rana, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Parveen Kumar Rohilla, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 24.12.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 would be entitled to the notional benefit of pay fixation with effect from the date Shri Om Parkash Ranga-proforma respondent No. 2 has been promoted on the post of Divisional Head Draftsman. In that regard, learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Charan Dass Charan Dass Charan Dass Charan Dass v. v. v. v. State of Punjab State of Punjab State of Punjab State of Punjab (CWP No. 5956 of 2008, decided on (CWP No. 5956 of 2008, decided on (CWP No. 5956 of 2008, decided on (CWP No. 5956 of 2008, decided on 18.11.2008) 18.11.2008) 18.11.2008) 18.11.2008) as well as a Single Bench judgment rendered in the LPA No. 1259 of 2011 (O&M) 2 case of V.B. Nanda and others V.B. Nanda and others V.B. Nanda and others V.B. Nanda and others v. v. v. v. U.H.B.V.N. and others U.H.B.V.N. and others U.H.B.V.N. and others U.H.B.V.N. and others (CWP No. (CWP No. (CWP No. (CWP No. 20351 of 2008, de 20351 of 2008, de 20351 of 2008, de 20351 of 2008, decided on 14.7.2010) cided on 14.7.2010) cided on 14.7.2010) cided on 14.7.2010). 2. The Division Bench in the case of Charan Dass (supra) noticed the principle of law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Singh Jasuja v. State of Punjab, JT 1999 (7) SC 153 Ajit Singh Jasuja v. State of Punjab, JT 1999 (7) SC 153 Ajit Singh Jasuja v. State of Punjab, JT 1999 (7) SC 153 Ajit Singh Jasuja v. State of Punjab, JT 1999 (7) SC 153 that though a reserved category employee could be promoted to higher post on the basis of reservation roster point earlier to a senior general category employee, when the latter is promoted, he would catch up with the reserved category junior on the last higher post, after which there exists no reservation in promotion and the general category employee declared senior in that particular post would be granted benefits accordingly. Accordingly, the pay of the petitioner in that case was ordered to be stepped up in his scale of pay on the date of his promotion to the next higher post as Assistant on par with his junior who was promoted earlier and still later to the posts of Deputy Superintendents and Superintendents at the respective Levels 2, 3 & 4 from the dates when he assumed office at the promotion posts. Similarly, in the case of V.B. Nanda V.B. Nanda V.B. Nanda V.B. Nanda (supra) (supra) (supra) (supra) the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on a circular dated 12.4.2007 stipulating that in case an employee is held entitled for benefit of promotion then he may not be given arrears of salary but he would be entitled to the benefit of fixation of pay on notional basis. Accordingly, the claim made in the said writ petition has been allowed and the UHBVNL was directed to re-fix the salary of the petitioners by giving them notional benefit from the date of deemed promotion till the date of actual promotion and LPA No. 1259 of 2011 (O&M) 3 to pay them the salary from the date of actual promotion on their respective posts. 3. It is admitted fact that against the judgment dated 14.7.2010 rendered in the case of V.B. Nand V.B. Nand V.B. Nand V.B. Nanda ( a ( a ( a (supra) supra) supra) supra), LPA No. 954 of 2011 was filed by the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited. On 30.5.2011, we dismissed the said appeal by observing as under: “4. Having heard learned counsel, we find that the appellant has made an attempt to withdraw the order of promotion issued to the writ petitioner- respondents and that too after the pronouncement of the judgment. Such an action is wholly improper, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. We further find that the reason stated in the show cause notice is flimsy and would not constitute a valid basis to withdraw the promotion given to the writ petitioner- respondent. According to the show cause notice, the promotion of the writ petitioner-respondents touches the period when erstwhile rules use to govern the service conditions which related to HSEB. We raised pointed query to Mr. Narender Hooda and he could convincingly answered. The appellant has been irked by the view taken by this Court and such a show cause notice is absolutely unjustified. The appeal is without merit and thus, is liable to be dismissed.” 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book we are of the considered view that the matter is squarely covered by judgment dated 26.5.2011 rendered LPA No. 1259 of 2011 (O&M) 4 by the Letters Patent Bench in V.B. Handa’s case (supra). Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 5. Keeping in view the dismissal of appeal on merit, we do not wish to pass any order on the application seeking condonation of delay of 76 days in filing of the appeal. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH) August August August August 29, 2011 , 2011 , 2011 , 2011 JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE Pkapoor