IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.61 of 2006(O&M) Date of decision: 04.12.2009 State of Punjab -----Appellant Vs. Smt. Prem Jindal. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl.A.G., Punjab for the appellant. Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate for the respondent. --- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, directing payment of arrears of pay to the post of Director from 25.9.1989 to 11.8.1993, period for which the respondent was denied promotion. 2. The respondent joined service as teacher in the year 1956 and was appointed to the Punjab Education Service Class-I on 28.12.1981. She made claim for the post of Director and though she was initially granted promotion from 11.8.1993, vide order dated 26.8.1997, she was given notional promotion w.e.f. LPA No.61 of 2006 25.9.1989, having regard to certain subsequent developments. She was not held entitled to consequential arrears. Claim in the writ petition was made for grant of said arrears on the basis of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. V.K.V. Jankiraman and others AIR 1991 SC 2010. Learned Single Judge upheld the said claim. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.K.V. Jankiraman (supra) for grant of arrears for the period of notional promotion was on its peculiar facts as explained in subsequent judgments including State of Haryana and others v. O. P. Gupta, etc. AIR 1996 SC 2936 and Babu Lal v. Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (2009) 4 SCC 287 and principle of ‘no work no pay’ could be applied in such a situation. He also relied on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union Territory, Chandigarh v. Brijmohan Kaur (2007) 11 SCC 488. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the view taken in the judgment of learned Single Judge, by relying on the judgments of this Court in Vidya Parkash Harnal v. State of Haryana 1995(3) SCT 785 and State of Haryana v. Bani Singh Yadav 2005(1) RSJ 606. 6. We find merit in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that grant of consequential benefits of notional promotion from an earlier date is not an inflexible rule and 2 LPA No.61 of 2006 observations in V.K.V. Jankiraman (supra) have been explained in subsequent judgments relied upon on behalf of the State. In L.P.A. No.542 of 2009 Ram Kishan v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vihar Nigam Ltd. & ors., decided on 10.8.2009 it was observed:- “xx xx xx xx xx 7. ..... The principles laid down in the judgments relied upon is not an absolute principle and has been diluted in subsequent judgments including in State of Haryana v. O.P. Gupta, 1996(7) SCC 533, Para 8, State of Kerala v. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai (2007) 6 SCC 524, para 4, Commr., Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah (2007) 7 SCC 669, para 34, Union of India v. B.M. Jha (2007) 11 SCC 632, para 5 and J.K. Synthetics v. K.P. Agrawal and another (2007) 2 SCC 433. xx xx xx xx xx” 7. In view of above, the appeal may have deserved to be allowed. However, having regard to the fact that no stay was granted while admitting this appeal, more than three years ago and the payment has been made and also that the respondent has already retired from service, we do not disturb the impugned judgment. 7. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 04, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3