IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 2088/2008 Decided on:22.6.2010 _____________________________________________ Dalip Singh. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. S.R. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Shimla in case No. 120/3 of 1984 under sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Penal Code on 31.12.1984. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge (Special-I), Shimla. He acquitted the petitioner vide judgment dated 29.10.1986. State came in appeal against the judgment dated 29.10.1986. This Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the State vide judgment dated 17.1.1991. Since the petitioner remained under suspension with effect from 18.7.1980 to 30.11.1986, he made a representation after his 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 acquittal. He was reinstated vide office order dated 21.11.1986. Thereafter, he made representation to consider his case for promotion to the post of Assistant, now Senior Assistant. It will be pertinent to refer at this stage Annexure A-1 whereby the period of suspension with effect from 18.7.1980 to 30.11.1986 has been ordered to be treated as the period spent on duty. In sequel to the representation made by the petitioner, his case was duly considered for promotion and vide Annexure A-3 dated 17.8.1992, petitioner has been promoted from the date his immediate junior Sh. Madan Singh was promoted. However, petitioner was promoted notionally. In other words, no monetary benefits have been given to the petitioner though his case has been considered for promotion from the date when his juniors were considered. Respondent-State has relied upon rule 10 (16) (2) of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 to deny the monetary benefits to the petitioner. Rule 10 (16) (2) of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Petitioner has been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge and the appeal preferred by the State stood dismissed. His case was not considered for promotion due to pendency of criminal case registered against him. Since he has been acquitted by the learned Sessions 3 Judge, his case was required to be considered for promotion and he ought to have been promoted with all the consequential benefits instead of granting him notional promotion. Petitioner was always ready and willing to work and it was only due to registration of criminal case against him, his case was not considered for promotion. In view of this, the principles of “no work no pay” shall not apply. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others versus K.V. Jankiraman and others, (1991) 4 SCC 109 have held as under: “We are not much impressed by the contentions advanced on behalf of the authorities. The normal rule of "no work no pay" is not applicable to cases such as the present one where the employee although he is willing to work is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his. This is not a case where the employee remains away from work for his own reasons, although the work is offered to him. It is for this reason that F.R. 17(1) will also be inapplicable to such cases.” Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove and the definitive law of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-3 dated 17.8.1992 is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been promoted with all the consequential monetary benefits with effect from 11.1.1985 to 13.9.1988. Needful be 4 done within a period of eight weeks. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 22.6.2010 *awasthi*