IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 2558 of 2008. Decided on: 12.3.2009. __________________________________________________ Shri Amar Nath … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. & others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Gautam, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy.A.G. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral). The Departmental Promotion Committee has recommended the case of the petitioner for the post of Peon-cum-Chowkidar on temporary basis in the pay scale of Rs. 750/- vide office order dated 7.11.1990. However, it appears that the same was not implemented and fresh order was issued on 21.10.1991. He approached the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application No. 1986 of 1993. The same was directed to be treated as representation by the learned Tribunal on 2.11.1993. The representation made by the petitioner was accepted by the Director of Education, Himachal Pradesh on 20.11.1994. However, though the petitioner was promoted as per the decision of the Director of Education with effect from 7.11.1990 yet salary for the period with effect from 7.11.1990 to September, 1991 had not been paid to the petitioner on the principle of “no work, no pay”. In the present 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes. 2 case the petitioner in fact was promoted vide office order dated 7.11.1990. However, for the reasons best known to the State Government, it was not implemented and fresh order was passed on 21.10.1991. It was only on the basis of the decision taken by the Director of Education vide Annexure-RA dated 20.11.1994 that the petitioner was promoted with effect from 7.11.1990 though on notional basis. In this case the petitioner was ready and willing to work on higher post, but has been prevented by the respondents from doing so since 7.11.1990. The persons junior to the petitioners were promoted and the petitioner was left out. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. K.V. Jankiraman and others, (1991) 4 Supreme Court Cases 109 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. 71 (1) will also be inapplicable to such cases.” In view of the definitive law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court coupled with the fact that the petitioner was prevented by the respondents from discharging his duties of Peon-cum- Chowkidar, the petitioner is held entitled for the salary with effect from 7.11.1990 to September, 1991. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the petitioner the salary with effect from 7.11.1990 to September, 1991 with interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. March 12, 2009. (cr) 3