IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 1063/2008 Decided on:15.3. 2010 _____________________________________________ N.K. Jindal. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1.yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral) Petitioner approached this Court for the redressal of his grievance by way of CWP No.6 of 1974. Amended rules were struck down being violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India and the respondents arrayed therein were directed to consider the petitioner for the purpose of promotion according to the old Rules of 1972. However, respondent-State preferred appeal bearing LPA No. 25/1975. The same was withdrawn on 26.4.1985. However, the fact of the matter is that despite the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge on 21.3.1975, having become final after the withdrawal of LPA No. 25/1975 on 26.4.1985 the same was not 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? . yes 2 implemented in letter and spirit immediately. The judgment was implemented vide notifications Annexures A-2 to A-5 that too partially. Petitioner has only been granted notional promotion. He has superannuated on 30.11.2006. Even the period of promotion has not been treated for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Respondents were required to implement the judgment at the earliest. Petitioner was always ready and willing to work on the higher post. In these circumstances, the principle 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, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to grant petitioner all the monetary benefits flowing after the promotion effected on the basis of Annexures A-2 to A-5. Petitioner is held entitled to interest @ 9% per annum. Respondents are further directed to count this period of promotion 3 for the purpose of granting pensionary benefits to petitioner. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 15.3. 2010 *awasthi*