IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 86 of 2009 Date of Decision: March 25, 2009 Bijender Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present : Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Jayender S. Chandail, Addl. A.G., Haryana. S.D. Anand, J. While invalidating the termination of services of the petitioner, the learned Trial Court had upheld his entitlement to all the consequential benefits but not the back wages. It is common ground that the decree otherwise stand complied with in toto. The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner may be indicated as under:- After the petitioner joined, in pursuance of the decretal of the suit (by the learned First Appellate Court which reversed the order of the learned Trial Court dismissing it), he joined the job on 04.02.1994. Thereafter, his seniority was re- determined with effect C.R. No. 86 of 2009 from 09.07.1985 (with effect from which he had been appointed on ad hoc basis and regularized as well), he was given deemed promotion (vide order dated 23.08.2005) w.e.f. 31.03.1993. Though he had been paid wages payable to him as a Clerk for the period since 31.03.1993 onwards, he claimed entitlement to the higher wages to which he would have been entitled, as an Assistant, if he had been actually promoted on 31.03.1993 itself. The petitioner filed an execution to claim higher wages for the above indicated period. The plea was resisted by the respondents by averring that the petitioner was not entitled to higher wages as he did not work during that period as an Assistant. The learned Executing Court upheld the resistance put up by the respondents, thereby impelling the petitioner to come up in revision. Though the petitioner was given deemed promotion (vide order dated 23.08.2005) w.e.f. 31.03.1993, there can be no dispute with the factual stance that he did not perform the higher responsibilities attached to the post of Assistant w.e.f. 31.03.1993. During that period, he performed only clerical duties. He cannot, thus, be held entitled to the award of higher wages for the period aforementioned. The petition is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. March 25, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 2