IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 14201 of 2008. Decided on: 16.06.2011. ___________________________________________ Onkar Nath. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). The petitioner has filed Original Application before the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal bearing No.683 of 2003, for the determination of his seniority. However, during the pendency of the original application, the seniority of the petitioner was re-cast vide order dated 14th 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - September, 2005 and instead of earlier Sr. No.19, he was assigned new Sr. No.12/1 below Nand Lal son of Shri Bakshi Ram, vide Annexure A-3. In sequel to Annexure A-3, the Review Departmental Promotion Committee recommended the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Naib Tehsildar from the feeder category of Kanungos in the pay scale of ` 6400-10640 with effect from 18.11.1995, i.e. from the date his juniors were promoted to the post of Naib Tehsildar. However, the petitioner was held entitled to all the consequential benefits from the date he was promoted, but he was not held entitled to any kind of arrears vide office order dated 20th February, 2006, Annexure A-4. 2. Ms. Ranjana Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that her client was required to be held entitled to all the monetary benefits from the date he was promoted to the post of Naib Tehsildar, i.e. 18.11.1995. 3. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General has vehemently argued that in this case the principle of ‘no work no pay’ will be applicable and the petitioner cannot be granted any monetary benefits. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings. - 3 - 5. It is not in dispute that the seniority of the petitioner was restored to Sr. No.12/1 instead of Sr. No.19 as per Annexure A-3 dated 14th September, 2005. On the basis of the recommendations of the Review Departmental Promotion Committee, he was promoted to the post of Naib Tehsildar with effect from 18.11.1995 and he was granted the benefit of seniority and fixation of pay. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General that the petitioner will not be entitled to the monetary benefits, in view of law laid down by their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India, Etc. Etc. Versus K. V. Jankiraman, Etc. Etc. (1991) 4, SCC 109. Their Lordships have held as under (para 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.” 6. In the instant case, the petitioner was always ready and willing to discharge the duties of the higher post of Naib Tehsildar, but he has been prevented from doing so due - 4 - to the illegal action of the respondents since he was not promoted from the date his juniors were promoted. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-4, dated 20th February, 2006 is quashed and set aside to the extent whereby the petitioner is not held entitled to any kind of arrears. The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner all the monetary benefits and other consequential benefits with effect from 18.11.1995, within a period of ten weeks after the production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. June 16, 2011. (sck).