IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 175 of 2010 Date of decision: 01.08.2011 Rajesh Kumar and others ...Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Pawan Sharma,, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Anjali Kukkar, Advocate for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH J. The short question arises in this case is whether the petitioners would be entitled to monetary benefit from the date they have been granted promotion or that they can be denied pay and allowances for the period on the principle of 'No Work No Pay'. The petitioner had earlier filed CWP No. 11192 of 2008 seeking inter se seniority on the basis of merit/select list prepared by the Selection Committee. Notice was issued and the respondent- state promoted the petitioners w.e.f. 20.05.2005 i.e. the date of promotion of their juniors. This order was passed on 17.12.2008. The petitioners had then prayed that the consequential monetary benefits be also released to them on account of their back date promotion. This Court, however, gave liberty to the petitioners to file representation, which was to be decided by the respondents. The petitioners, accordingly, made a representation on 04.05.2009. Civil Writ Petition No. 175 of 2010 -2- The respondents have now rejected his claim on the basis of FR-17 pleading that the respondents were under obligation and duty bound to assign seniority as per Section 8 (d) (i) of Central Reserve Force Rules, 1955. The petitioners have now filed this writ petition to seek monetary benefits as they were denied their rightful due without any fault on their part. The plea is that the petitioners were always available to work and they were denied their promotion because of wrong action on the part of the respondents. Under these circumstances, as per the counsel, principle of 'No Work No Pay' cannot be made applicable and the petitioners would be entitled to monetary benefits as prayed for. The respondents have filed reply and have disputed the claim made by the petitioners. The submission is that the petitioners ought to have asked this relief when they filed this writ petition and once that petition was disposed of, the petitioners cannot claim this benefit through separate writ petition. Otherwise also, it is pleaded that principle of 'No Work No Pay' will be applicable to the case of the petitioners and they would be entitled to monetary benefits from the date they have assumed the charge and not from any anterior date. Counsel for the petitioners has made reference to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India versus K.V. Jankiraman etc., AIR 1991 Supreme Court 2010. It is held in this case that when an employee is completely exonerated in criminal/disciplinary proceedings and is not visited with the penalty Civil Writ Petition No. 175 of 2010 -3- even of censure indicating thereby that he was not blameworthy in the least, he should not be deprived of any benefits including the salary of the promotional post. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that normal rule of 'No Work No Pay' is not applicable to such cases where the employee although, he is willing to work, is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his. The present one is a case where the petitioners were available and willing to work all through. It is only because of the fault of the respondents that they were kept away from the work. The petitioners would further suffer if principle of 'No Work No Pay' is made applicable in such like cases. It does not sound well to urge that the respondents will first not promote the petitioners by assigning wrong seniority and then realize the mistake to correct the position but still would deny financial benefits. The rule of 'No Work No Pay' will not apply in such cases. The fault for not promoting the petitioners in time by assigning wrong seniority in violation of the rule clearly would be that of the respondent. In view of the law laid down in Jankiraman 's case (supra), the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The petitioners are held entitled to all the monetary benefits from the date of its notional promotion. August 01, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE