IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.7949/2008 Decided on:12.5.2009 Lal Chand. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. yes. For the petitioner : Mr.D.P. Gupta, Advocate vice Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. Rajiv Sharma, J. The petitioner was appointed in Police Department in the 1st Himachal Pradesh AP Battalion, Junga on 24.9.1971. He was confirmed on 24.9.1976. The persons junior to him were promoted to the post of Head Constable in the year 1987. He made several representations against the arbitrary decision of the State whereby his case was not considered at all for promotion to the post of Head Constable under 10% exemptee quota under rule 13.8 (2) of the Punjab Police Rules. The matter was kept alive by the respondents. He was promoted to the post of Head Constable against 10% exemptee quota on notional basis against 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes. 2 the vacancy of 1st Battalion, Junga with effect from 27.5.1987 when his juniors were promoted on 27.5.1987. This was done vide order dated 6.9.2003, however, he was held entitled to the monetary benefits only from the date he joined in the 1st Battalion at Junga as Head Constable. In other words, he was deprived of the monetary benefits with effect from 27.5.1987. Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate has strenuously argued that the petitioner was always eligible to be considered for promotion against 10% exemptee quota. According to him, the persons junior to him were considered and promoted and the petitioner was left out. He then contended that once the respondents have decided to grant the promotion to the petitioner as Head Constable from 27.5.1987, he is entitled to all the monetary benefits. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the petitioner is not entitled to monetary benefits. According to him the principle of ‘no work no pay’ will be applicable in this case. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. A bare perusal of order dated 6.9.2003 reveals that the grievance of the petitioner so far as the promotion from the back date is concerned to the post of Head Constable has been redressed. However, he has been deprived of the monetary benefits. In this case, the petitioner has been deprived of the benefits of promotion due to administrative lapses. He was bound to be considered for promotion from the due date i.e. 27.5.1987. In fact, he has been considered from this date and promoted to the rank of Head Constable. He was entitled to all the monetary benefits after he was promoted with effect from 27.5.1987. 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 that the principle of ‘no work no pay’ will not be applicable where the incumbent is ready and willing to discharge the duties, however, he is prevented from doing so. There Lordships 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.” Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala and others versus E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai, (2007) 6 SCC 524 have held that there cannot be straitjacket formula for laying down guidelines/principle of ‘no work no pay’. Their Lordships have held as under: “So far as the situation with regard to monetary benefits with retrospective promotion is concerned, that depends upon case to case. There are various facets which have to be considered. Sometimes in a case of departmental enquiry or in criminal case it depends on the authorities to grant full back wages or 50 per cent of back wages looking to the nature of delinquency involved in the matter or in criminal cases where the incumbent has been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt or full acquittal. Sometimes in the matter when the person is superseded and he has challenged the same before Court or Tribunal and he succeeds in that and direction is given for reconsideration of his case from the date persons junior to him were appointed, in that 4 case the Court may grant sometime full benefits with retrospective effect and sometimes it may not. Particularly when the administration has wrongly denied his due then in that case he should be given full benefits including monetary benefit subject to there being any change in law or some other supervening factors. However, it is very difficult to set down any hard and fast rule. The principle 'no work no pay' cannot be accepted as a rule of thumb. There are exceptions where courts have granted monetary benefits also.” Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to all the monetary benefits with effect from 27.5.1987. The respondents are directed to calculate and pay the arrears with interest @ 9% per annum to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today. No costs. 12.5. 2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*