IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 10008 of 1996 Date of Decision: 12.5.2010. Nasib Singh --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jitender Bedwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk on selection through the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana in the year 1957. He suffered two adverse entries in his confidential reports for the years 1971-72 and 1976-77. It is alleged that these confidential reports were not conveyed to him and after coming to know of the same, petitioner made a representation for expunction of the reports. Petitioner was at Sr. No.3 and respondent no.4 was at Sr. No. 23 of the seniority list of Clerks. In the meantime, respondent no.4 was promoted as Assistant on 1.8.1973, as Head Assistant on 10.12.1981, as Deputy Supdt. On 5.2.1984 and as Supdt. w.e.f. 13.5.1985. Representation filed by the petitioner, however, came to be accepted and adverse remarks were expunged vide memo dated 19.9.1995. With the expunction of adverse entries, petitioner's reports were upgraded from 'Average' to 'Good'. In view of the revision of the A.C.Rs, petitioner was promoted as Assistant w.e.f.10.1.1973 and as Head Assistant w.e.f. 8.1.1979 vide order dated 20.10.1995 (Annexure P-3). He was further promoted as Superintendent w.e.f. 8.6.1995 vide order (Annexure P-4). The CWP. No. 10008 of 1996 -2- petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.1995. The petitioner has projected following grievances:- 1. He is entitled to promotion as Deputy Supdt. and Supdt. with effect from the dates his junior, respondent no.4 was promoted. 2. He is entitled to arrears of salary/emoluments as a consequence of the retrospective promotion. 3. He is entitled to payment of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity. On account of the expunction of the adverse entries and upgradation of A.C.Rs the petitioner was definitely entitled to be considered for promotion to the higher post in the hierarchy of service at least from the dates his junior, respondent no.4 was promoted. The respondents did promote the petitioner to the posts of Assistant and Head Assistant even prior to the date of promotion of respondent no.4. However, petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Supdt. as on 5.2.1984 and for the post of Supdt. As on 13.5.1985 the dates his junior, respondent no.4 was promoted. To the contrary he has been promoted as Supdt. Directly without promoting him as Deputy Supdt. w.e.f. 8.6.1995. The petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Supdt. and Supdt. from the dates his junior-respondent no.4 was promoted. The other prayer of the petitioner for arrears of the emoluments is not sustainable for the simple reason that the promotion of the petitioner to the higher post was not withheld illegally by the respondents but on account of the adverse A.C.Rs which the petitioner seems to have suffered. It is a different matter that the adverse entries were later on removed on his representation/appeal. The petitioner is, thus, not entitled to the arrears of the salary on promotional post having not worked thereon on the principle of 'No Work No Pay'. CWP. No. 10008 of 1996 -3- In so far the claim of the petitioner for payment of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity is concerned, the respondents are liable to pay the interest on the delayed payment of arrears. In view of the above, this petition is allowed in the following manner:- 1. The petitioner shall be promoted as Deputy Supdt. w.e.f. 5.2.1984 and as Supdt. w.e.f. 13.5.1985. However, he will not be entitled to any monetary benefit, though, his salary and other emoluments shall be fixed granting him notional benefit as on the date of his promotion. He will also be entitled to pay revision, if, any in the meantime. 2. The respondents will calculate the interest on the statutory rate payable on the delayed payment of gratuity. In view of the retirement of the petitioner, all his retiral/pensionary benefits shall be re-determined in the light of the aforesaid directions and settled within a period of six months. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 12.5.2010. lucky