CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6543 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JULY 15 ,2011 Om Parkash Gurah .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. D. R. Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Treasury Officer promoted as such with effect from 13.3.2007 has approached this Court to grant him this promotion with effect from 11.6.2004 and to pay him salary of the post with effect from 31.7.2001 as he had continuously performed the duties of Treasury Officer with effect from said date. Having been appointed as Assistant Treasury Officer directly on 12.10,1988, the petitioner has joined on the post on 12.2.1989 after completing the training. The petitioner competed his CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6543 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: probation period satisfactorily. As per the petitioner, a junior working as Officiating Treasury Officer, recorded some adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report on 4.6.2003, which he challenged by filing a writ petition and the same were expunged. The petitioner has also referred to a writ petition filed by him to challenge the tentative seniority list, which was disposed of with a direction to decide his objections and to finalise the seniority list. The petitioner claims to have been given a current duty charge as a Treasury Officer on 31.7.2001 while his junior was appointed as Treasury Officer. The petitioner challenged the same as well. When the two posts of promotional quota became available in the year 2004, the case of the petitioner was processed but one Mahipal was promoted on 27.5.2004. The promotion of the petitioner was withheld. In fact, the petitioner was under suspension on account of registration of an FIR, which however, was quashed on 6.5.2005. The petitioner was accordingly reinstated as Treasury Officer and his suspension period was treated as duty period. Ultimately, the petitioner was promoted as Treasury Officer on 8.4.2008. He, however, represented for promotion with effect from 11.6.2004 i.e. the date from which the promotional quota post was available. His promotion, however, was made effective from 13.3.2007, when statedly his junior was promoted. This benefit was also given notionally. Claiming that the petitioner is discharging the duties of Treasury Officer ever since 31.7.2001, the petitioner claims financial benefits of the post from this date. For this, the petitioner served a CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6543 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: legal notice, which was rejected on 29.10.2009. In between, the petitioner was again suspended on 23.6.2009 and was charge sheeted but after considering his reply to the charge sheet, he was reinstated. The petitioner has now filed this writ petition, claiming relief of promotion with effect from retrospective date and for grant of pay and allowances for the period he had performed the duties of Treasury Officer. Respondents have filed reply, making number of preliminary submissions. It is pointed out that the petitioner was transferred from Sub Treasury Office, Pundri to District Treasury, Jind against the post of Treasury Officer but in his own pay scale vide order dated 12.3.2003. Responding to the plea of the petitioner for grant of promotion from retrospective date, it is pointed out that there are 21 sanctioned posts of Treasury Officers. As per the Rules, 25% of the posts are to be filled by direct recruitment whereas remaining 75% are to be filled by promotion from amongst the Assistant Treasury Officers. Accordingly, 5 posts were meant for direct recruitment whereas 16 posts were for promotee Assistant Treasury Officers. Out of 16 posts, 15 posts have already been filled and only 1 post remained to be filled by promotion from Assistant Treasury Officers. Mahi Pal, Assistant Treasury Officer and senior to the petitioner, was accordingly promoted against this quota on 11.6.2004. The petitioner could not be promoted subsequently also, when his junior was promoted as at that time the petitioner was under suspension and one FIR was pending against him. Upon finalisation of the proceedings, the petitioner was finally promoted as CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6543 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: Treasury Officer vide order dated 8.4.2008 but with retrospective date of 13.3.2007. This was the date his junior was promoted to the post of Treasury Officer. This order was passed on 26.2.2009. Once the FIR registered against the petitioner was quashed, the petitioner was reinstated and his suspension period has also been treated as having been spent on duty. The petitioner has, thus, been paid benefits notionally with effect from 13.3.2007 till the date he actually joined the post. In the reply, the respondents have also explained how the vacancy became available only from 30.8.2007. In fact, one Sh.J.S.Suhag had relinquished the charge of Treasury Officer on 11.10.2004 and one Sh.S.D.Vidayarthi was promoted to the post of Senior Accounts Officer w.e.f. 8.4.2004 vide order dated 13.8.2007. Thus, the vacancy became available on 30.8.2007. The prayer made in the writ petition is accordingly contested. Having heard the counsel for the parties, I find that there is no merit in the pleas raised by the petitioner. The petitioner can not claim promotion with effect from 11.6.2004 in view of the position explained above. That was the date, his senior was promoted against the only post meant for promotees. The petitioner has already been given a notional promotion with effect from the date his junior was promoted. The petitioner could not be promoted alongwith his junior as he was facing criminal prosecution and this action of the respondents can not be faulted to ensure purity of administration. Once the petitioner was able to earn a clean chit, he has been promoted with effect from the date his junior was promoted. The CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6543 OF 2010 :{ 5 }: principle of `no work no pay' would clearly apply in this case as the petitioner had got involved in criminal offence for no fault on the part of the respondents. The order posting the petitioner as Treasury Officer, Jind, with effect from 31.7.2001 was with a clear stipulation that he was to work in his own pay scale and, thus, this would not give any right to the petitioner to claim pay and allowances on the basis of his posting as such. In view of the above, the writ petition is without any merit and is, therefore, dismissed. July 15, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE