Civil Writ Petition No. 3719 of 1991 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 3719 of 1991 Date of decision: 14.9.2009 Charan Singh ...Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. H.S.Gill, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manoj, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Surinder K. Bishnoi, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana ***** S.D.ANAND, J. 1. The petitioner was initially recruited, as a Constable in the Wireless Section of the Haryana Police, on 6.6.1974. Prior thereto, he served the Army for the period from 31.12.1964 to 9.9.1973. He was promoted, as a Head Constable, on 18.5.1979. Inspite of the repeated entreaties for the grant of benefit of Army service rendered during the actual period of emergency towards seniority, increment etc, the respondents did not do the needful. A number of similarly circumstanced colleagues of the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No.3302 of 1989 for that very relief. That Civil Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 25.5.1989 with a direction to the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioners therein within a period of three months. The petitioners therein were indeed awarded the relevant benefit which (benefit) Civil Writ Petition No. 3719 of 1991 -2- **** was also extended to the petitioner who was also promoted as ASI. However, the petitioner raised a claim for retrospective promotion with effect from 22.1.1982 i.e. the date with effect from which his juniors had been promoted. Respondents no.2 and 3, rejected that plea of his by an administrative order, thereby impelling the petitioner to file Civil Writ Petition No.1777 of 1990 which was allowed by this Court on 23.5.1990. It was held therein that the executive instructions by the respondents in the context in the year 1987 could not be taken into consideration for considering the case of the petitioner for promotion which was due in the year 1982. There also was a direction that case of the petitioner shall be disposed of within a period of six months. The respondents challenged the validity of the order dated 23.5.1990 by filing an SLP which was dismissed by the Apex Court in limine, vide order dated 3.12.1990 (Annexure P-3). Inspite thereof, the respondents did not comply with the orders dated 23.5.1990 of this Court till the petitioner opted to serve a legal notice upon them. It was thereafter only that the petitioner was promoted as ASI with effect from 22.1.1982. The promotion order was, however, subject to rider that petitioner would be liable to reversion if he was not able to qualify the R.O.G.-III course in the ensuing training course which is likely to commence in January, 1991 and ROG-II course in the first opportunity given to him. The order was further qualified in character inasmuch it provided that the petitioner would not be entitled to arrears of pay and allowances for the relevant period. That order proceeded on the no work no pay basis (Annexure P-4). 2. The petitioner has a grievance that the impugned order could not be subject to any rider whatsoever and further that the petitioner could also not be denied wages for the period for which promotion had been Civil Writ Petition No. 3719 of 1991 -3- **** unjustly denied to him. 3. The respondents placed implicit reliance upon instructions dated 23.3.1987 for imposing a rider upon the impugned promotion that the petitioner shall have to qualify Telecommunication Operator Grade II and Grade III test. There is an averment, in the course of para 8 of the written statement that the Apex Bench (while dismissing the SLP in limine) had verbally observed that there was nothing in the order passed by this Court which restrained the competent authority from considering other aspects while deciding the case of promotion of the petitioner. 4. The learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argued with vehemence that it was inappropriate for the respondents to place any rider upon the promotion of the petitioner in view of the categorical order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 23.5.1990 (Annexure P-2). It was also argued that the reliance placed by the respondents, in order to support the imposition of rider aforementioned upon 1987 instructions, is misconceived in view of the observations made by the Bench in the judgment dated 23.5.1990. 5. The learned State Counsel resisted the plea aforementioned by arguing that the order dated 23.5.1990 in Civil Writ Petition 1777 of 1990 did not, at all, imply that the administrative instructions issued by the competent authority in the matter of promotion had to be given a go by. 6. It is being common ground that the petitioner has since been granted retrospective promotion with effect from 22.1.1982, it is apparent that the instructions prevalent at that point of time could only be taken into consideration in the context of imposition of any rider. The 1987 instructions came about much later than the year 1982 with effect from which year promotion had been granted to the petitioner. These Civil Writ Petition No. 3719 of 1991 -4- **** instructions were not at all in vogue in the year 1982. How exactly, then, these instructions can govern the consideration of an issue decided in the year 1982 defies logical comprehension. It is precisely this view which was taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 23.5.1990. The following observations made by the Division Bench can be quoted with advantage:- “By virtue of the seniority granted to the petitioner in 1990, his seniority has been fixed at Serial No.69. According to the return filed by the respondents, his juniors were promoted to the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police in 1982. It follows, therefore, that the case of the petitioner for promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police was required to be considered in 1982 keeping in view the Rules and instructions operative for such promotion at that time. Admittedly, the instructions Annexure P-3 were issued in 1987. These instructions cannot, therefore, be taken into account while considering the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in 1982. In the result, the order Annexure P-7 in respect of the petitioner is hereby set aside and the matter regarding his promotion in 1982 to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector is directed to be considered afresh without taking into account the instructions Annexure P-3.” 7. The only inference, which is deducible circumstances of the case is that the imposition of the test-related rider in the promotion order dated 10.12.1990 (Annexure P-4) deserves to be invalidated and it is so ordered accordingly. Civil Writ Petition No. 3719 of 1991 -5- **** 8. Insofar as the relief applied for the petitioner qua the payment of arrears etc. is concerned, there also the petitioner is on a firmer footing. There is plethora of law on the point that the principle of no work no pay cannot be applied to a case wherein a Court orders the grant of promotion with retrospective effect. Once the Court comes to the conclusion that a claim made by the petitioner had been unjustly denied, it would be illogical to deny the monetary benefits accruing therefrom to the winner. If the grant of monetary benefits is denied to a winner of that category, it would amount to enabling those juniors to him to continue to reap benefit of their promotion; whereas that very benefit which ought to have been otherwise given by the competent authority to the petitioner with effect from the date his juniors were promoted, shall be denied to him. This view of mine is fully supported by the following observations by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Bhim Singh and others Vs. The State of Haryana and others 1995 (4) SLR 299. “In view of the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court and by this Court, I have no hesitation to hold that denial of monetary benefits to the petitioners in spite of their retrospective promotions is without any legal or constitutional sanction. By denying monetary benefits to the petitioners, the respondents have directly infringed their right of equality before law. A direct consequence of denial of monetary benefits to the petitioners would be that the persons junior to them would have enjoyed the actual benefits of promotions and the petitioners despite having been declared senior and having been found entitled to promotion from earlier dates will stand deprived of the real and substantial benefits.” Civil Writ Petition No. 3719 of 1991 -6- **** 9. In that case, reliance had also been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Union of India Vss. K.V.Jankirama 1991 (5) SLR 602 (SC) and also a Division Bench of this Court in Bir Singh Kadian Vs. State of Haryana 1994(4) SLR 424. 10. In the light of foregoing discussion, this petition shall stand allowed. The riders imposed in the promotion order Annexure P-4 are invalidated. Respondents are directed to disburse the monetary benefits in the context to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The exercise, with regard to the disbursement of the arrears in toto, shall be concluded within one month from today. September 14, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge Civil Writ Petition No. 3719 of 1991 -7- ****