IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.20974 of 2010 Date of decision: 30.05.2011 Gurmail Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. B.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioners were appointed as skilled helper by respondent No. 2. On 12.09.2006, they were promoted as Plant Attendant. The petitioners have been granted deemed date of promotion w.e.f. 11.01.1985. Though promoted with retrospective date but the petitioners have not been granted salary for the higher post, in view of the clause 5 inserted in the promotion order. It is stated that the petitioners shall be denied salary for the higher post. The relevant condition reads as under:- “ The benefit of retrospective promotional by the officials' w.e.f. 11.1.85 would be available for the purpose of pay fixation and they would not be paid the salary of higher post for the period they have not worked actually as such.” Civil Writ Petition No.20974 of 2010 -2- The petitioners made a representation to the respondents but were apprised that they are not being granted salary for this period on the principal of 'No Work No Pay'. The petitioners later learnt that some of the similarly situated persons, who were granted promotion with retrospective date on 04.02.2004, had filed the Civil Writ Petition before this Court No. 12037 of 2005, which was accepted by this Court on 02.02.2006. Directions were issued to the respondents to grant the salary from the date the promotion was granted. A copy of the orders passed in this regard has been placed on record as Annexures P-3 and P-4. Applying the ratio of law laid down in Union of India versus K.V. Jankiraman AIR 1991 SC 2010, it has been held that where an employee is not promoted on a due date and that he is kept away from working on the higher post without any fault on his part then the principle of No Work No Pay cannot be applied. The said writ petitions were accordingly allowed. Following this precedent, subsequently another Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1559 of 2007 Dhani Ram and others versus Haryana Power Generation Corporation and another decided on 29.04.2008 has allowed the same prayer. This factual position is not disputed by the counsel for the respondents though in the reply, reliance again is placed on Clause 5 in the promotion order, which is similar to the condition dealt by this Court earlier. In view of the above position, the present writ petition is also allowed in the same terms. May 30, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE