IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.:2271/2008 Decided on: 6.3. 2009 Iqbal Singh. …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 : Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder No.1 and 2. Dogra, Addl. Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) The precise case of the petitioner is that the respondents have promoted his juniors to the post of Forest Ranger on the basis of the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 6.5.1994. The case of the State is that the petitioner was not found fit for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee in the year 1994 due to pendency of departmental proceedings against him. He was also over looked by the Departmental Promotion Committee which met in the year 1998. Ultimately, the petitioner was found fit for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 21st September, 1999. He was promoted vide office order dated 27.9.1999 with effect from 16.8.1996. However, the petitioner has not been granted monetary benefits with 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 effect from 16.8.1996 to 27.9.1999. There is no reason forthcoming why the petitioner has been deprived of financial benefits from 16.8.1996 to 27.9.1999. It is not the case that the petitioner was not ready and willing to discharge the duties of higher post on 16.8.1996. He has been prevented by the respondents from discharging the duties of higher post. He has been found suitable and promoted to the post of Forest Ranger and was entitled to financial benefits with effect from 16.8.1996 to 27.9.1999. The case of the petitioner is also fortified by the judgment in Union of India and others versus K.V. Jankiraman and others, (1991) 4 SCC 109. There Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (1991) 4 SCC 109 (supra) 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.” In view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the financial benefits to the petitioner with effect from 16.8.1996 to 27.9.1999 within a period of 8 weeks from today. There shall, however, be no order as to costs 6.3.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*