CWP No. 18769 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 14.10.2010 Maman Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS The Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd. & another …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.J.S.Maanipur, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate for respondents Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr.Mohnish Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents. Keeping in view the controversy involved and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of at motion stage itself. The petitioner joined in the erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board (now Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd.) as work charge Motor Mate. He passed matriculation examination and ITI diploma of two years.. The petitioner was promoted retrospectively w.e.f. 11.1.1985, as CWP No. 18769 of 2010 2 Technician vide promotion order dated 4.2.2004 with certain conditions. The petitioner is aggrieved of one of the Condition No.5 whereby he has been denied the salary of promotional post retrospectively on the ground that he has not worked actually. It is agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties that the controversy involved in these petitions is no more res integra, as having been settled by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.12037 of 2005 decided on 2.2.2006. In the said writ petition, aforesaid Condition no.5 was subject matter of challenge. On consideration, following observations/directions have been made:- “In view of the above, there being no material on record to show that it is on account of any default of the petitioner that he was not promoted from the due date, we are of the view that he was kept away from working on the higher post for no fault of his. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be allowed. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and Condition No.5 of the order dated 9.3.2004 (Annexure P-2) whereby retrospective promotion from 11.1.1985 has been held to be available for the pay fixation only by denying the benefit of salary as a consequence of pay fixation is quashed and the petitioner is held entitled to all consequential benefits from the deemed date of his actual promotion i.e. 11.1.1985 and he is also held CWP No. 18769 of 2010 3 entitled to the release of his pension, leave encashment and other retiral benefits as a consequence of his being promoted on the higher post with effect from 11.1.1985. No costs.” This petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 14.10. 2010 MFK