IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 6933 of 2008. Decided on: 16th November, 2010. Sohan Singh. ….Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and another. ….Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. P. M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that he was entitled to be considered for promotion from the date his juniors were promoted to the post of Naib Tehsildar in the year, 1986. In order to ascertain whether the case of the petitioner has been considered or not in right earnest, the records of the Departmental and Promotion Committees were summoned. The Departmental and Promotion Committees have though considered the case of the petitioner for promotion, but he was not found suitable on the basis of entire service record. He was found fit for promotion on the basis of the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 25th July, 1995. He made representations that his case should be considered for promotion to the post of Naib Tehsildar from the due date. Thereafter, the review Departmental and Promotion Committee met on 3rd July, 1997 and the petitioner was promoted as Naib Tehsildar w.e.f. 30.06.1994, however, on notional basis. Petitioner was always 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - ready and willing to work on the higher post, but he was prevented by the respondents. Case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment rendered by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others Versus K.V. Jankiraman and Others, (1991) 4 Supreme Court Cases 109). Their Lordships have held as under: “25. 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.” 2. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is partly allowed. Respondents are directed to pay and release the monetary benefits to the petitioner w.e.f. 30th June, 1994, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The record after perusal has been returned to the learned Deputy Advocate General. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge November 16, 2010. (bhupender) - 3 - - 4 -