IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.146 of 2009 Date of decision: 18.5.2009 Garja Singh. -----Appellant Vs. The State of Punjab and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- Mr. H.S. Sethi, Advocate for the appellant. ------ ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred under Clause X of Letters Patent against judgment of learned Single Judge, allowing the claim of the writ petitioner-appellant for promotion to the post of Accountant retrospectively w.e.f. 18.8.1988 with all consequential benefits except monetary benefits. It was further directed that salary of the petitioner be fixed, giving him notional benefits of increments and retiral benefits be re-determined and re-fixed by granting notional benefits. 2. The appellant was employed with the State Government in the year 1964. He made a claim for promotion to the post of Accountant on the basis of his placement in seniority LPA Nos.146 of 2009 list. However, the cadre of Clerks/Steno-Typists was bifurcated with a view to release the Senior Scale in the ratio of 50:50. A separate seniority list was prepared. As a result of that, the petitioner was placed lower to respondent No.3, but above respondents No.4 to 7. Inspite of the said placement, respondents No.4 to 7 were given Senior Scale and promotion prior to the petitioner. 3. Learned Single Judge held that denial of promotion to the appellant prior to respondents No.4 to 7, who were junior to the petitioner, was arbitrary. However, it was noticed that respondents No.4 to 7 as well as the petitioner had already retired. Accordingly, the direction to give notional promotion was given. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that he was given promotion in due course in the year 1990 and thereafter he had been performing same duties and getting higher pay, but he was wrongly denied promotion and all consequential benefits from 1988 to 1990. 5. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India etc. v. K.V. Jankiraman etc. AIR 1991 SC 2010 and Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sudesh Kumar v. Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd. and antoher 2006(3) SCT 262. 6. We are unable to accept the submission. 2 LPA Nos.146 of 2009 7. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.V. Jankiraman (supra) was distinguished in State of Haryana v. O.P. Gupta 1996(7) SCC 533, para 8 with the observation that the said case related to claim for arrears during the period the employee was under suspension during pendency of a criminal trial. Relying on earlier judgment in Parulu Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India (1989) 2 SCC 541, para 19, it was observed that an employee may not be entitled to pay for the period during which he did not perform duties of higher post, though he may be given proper place in gradation list and deemed promotion on consideration of the matter. Similar view was taken in later judgments in State of Kerala v. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai (2007) 6 SCC 524, para4, Commr., Karnataka Housing Borad v. C. Muddaiah (2007) 7 SCC 689, para 34 and Union of India v. B.M. Jha (2007) 11 SCC 632. It was further held that there may be exceptions to this rule. 8. In view of above, no ground is made out for interference with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 9. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE May 18, 2009 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) ashwani JUDGE 3