Civil Writ Petition No. 1103 of 1986 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 1103 of 1986 Date of Decision: 4.11.2008 Mrs. Prem Shingari and Others …Petitioners Versus Punjab State Tube-well Corporation and Others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. V.K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Mrs. Prem Shingari, Personal Assistant to General Manager (Lin), Punjab State Tube-well Corporation, Chandigarh, Ravi Kumar Sabharwal, Personal Assistant to Secretary, Punjab State Tube-well Corporation, Chandigarh, Balwinder Singh, Personal Assistant to Managing Director, Punjab State Tube-well Corporation, Chandigarh, Vinod Tandon, Personal Assistant to General Manager (Tube-well), Punjab State Tube-well Corporation, Chandigarh, have filed the present writ petition. All the petitioners are employees of respondent No.1- Punjab State Tube-well Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Corporation”). It is stated that the petitioner joined respondent No.1- Corporation in the year 1972. Petitioners No.1 and 3 were promoted as Junior Scale Stenographers on 7.9.1977, whereas petitioners No.2 and Civil Writ Petition No. 1103 of 1986 2 4 were promoted as Junior Scale Stenographers on 12.6.1975 and 28.10.1976, respectively. The scale of Junior Scale Stenographers at that time was Rs.160-400. It is further stated that one Harjinder Singh, who came to respondent No.1-Corporation on deputation as Junior Scale Stenographer on 1.8.1977 was drawing the pay scale of Rs.140- 300. Grievance of the petitioner is that Harjinder Singh in September 1978, on creation of a post of Chairman, was appointed as Personal Assistant to Chairman on ad hoc basis. He was permanently absorbed in respondent No.1-Corporation on 1.1.1981 as Personal Assistant to the Chairman in the pay scale of Rs.350-800, which was subsequently revised to Rs.800-1400 w.e.f. 1.1.1981. Petitioners represented to respondent No.1-Corporation that they being senior to Harjinder Singh have been ignored for promotion to the post of Personal Assistant. Respondent No.1-Corporation paid heed to the request of the petitioners and w.e.f. 18.9.1978, the date when Harjinder Singh junior to the petitioners was appointed as Personal Assistant, they were promoted as Personal Assistants vide order dated 30.9.1985 (Annexure P4). Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that order (Annexure P4) was kept in abeyance vide order (Annexure P5). However, later on 17.12.1985, order of the petitioners' promotion (Annexure P7) to the post of Personal Assistant were issued. Petitioners are aggrieved against the order (Annexure P7) wherein it has been stated as under:- “On promotion they would not be given Civil Writ Petition No. 1103 of 1986 3 any higher pay and allowances for the old period and would thereby be entitled to the pay and allowances of the posts only prospectively i.e. from 27.9.1985 onwards”. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that, once junior of the petitioners was promoted and availed an opportunity to serve at a higher post and drew the salary, therefore, the petitioners were also entitled to benefit of salary from the day their junior was promoted. I find no merit in this contention. A reference can be made to a judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court rendered in Union of India v. B.M. Jha (2008)2 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 399, wherein it was held as under:- “5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It was argued by learned counsel for the respondent that when a retrospective promotion is given to an incumbent, normally he is entitled to all benefits flowing therefrom. However, this Court in State of Haryana v. O.P.Gupta and followed in A.K. Soumini v. State Bank of Travancore has taken the view that even in case of a national promotion from retrospective date, it cannot entitle the employee to arrears of salary as the incumbent has not worked in the promotional post. These decisions relied on the principle of “no work no pay”. The learned Division Bench in the impugned judgment has placed reliance on State of A.P. v. K.V.L. Narasimha Rao. In our view, the High Court did not examine Civil Writ Petition No. 1103 of 1986 4 that case in detail. In fact, in the said judgment the view taken by the High Court of grant of salary was set aside by this Court. Therefore, we are of the view that in the light of the consistent view taken by this Court in the above-mentioned cases, arrears of salary cannot be granted to the respondent in view of the principle of “no work no pay” in case of retrospective promotion. Consequently, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 17.5.2000 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court as also the order dated 11.1.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench”. In the present case, on the request of the petitioners, they were given promotion and all benefits were granted to them except pay and allowances. Petitioners have not worked on the post of Personal Assistant, therefore, principle of “No Work No Pay” was to be adhered to. Petitioners were given due promotion from the deemed date retrospectively, therefore, they are not entitled to the difference of salary for that period. Therefore, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge November 4, 2008 “DK”