IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 11023 of 2008. Decided on 22nd December, 2010. ____________________________________________________ Hari Chand. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of H.P. and Others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 NO. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. M.C. Verma, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Case of the petitioner though was considered for promotion, but the same was kept in sealed cover due to the pendency of departmental proceedings. Petitioner has been exonerated on 04.09.2003 (Annexure A-6). Thereafter, the sealed cover was opened and the petitioner has been promoted vide office order dated 09.10.2003 w.e.f. 28.06.2002 only on notional basis. 2. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has strenuously argued that since the petitioner has not worked on the higher post, he is not entitled to higher salary. This plea cannot be accepted. The petitioner was always ready and willing to perform the duties against the higher post. However, in the present case, it was due to the pendency of departmental 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - proceedings, which has ultimately led to his exoneration vide Annexure A-1, dated 09.10.2003. 3. 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.” 4. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-1, dated 09.10.2003 is modified, only to the extent that the petitioner shall be entitled to all the monetary benefits w.e.f. 28.06.2002. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge December 22, 2010. (bhupender) - 3 - `