LPA No.954 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.954 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision 26.05.2011 Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others. -----Appellants Versus V.B. Nanda and others ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 14.07.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the writ petition-respondents were not entitled to the notional benefit of pay fixation with effect from the date of their deemed promotion on their respective posts. 2. The learned Single Judge has placed reliance on a circular dated 12.04.2007 (P-8) stipulating that in case an employee is held entitled for benefit of promotion then he may not be given arrears of salary but he would be entitled to the benefit of fixation of pay on notional basis. Accordingly, the claim made by the writ petitioner- respondents has been allowed and the appellants have been directed to re-fix their salary by giving them notional benefit from the date of LPA No.954 of 2011 (O&M) -2- deemed promotion till the date of actual promotion and pay them the salary from the date of actual promotion on their respective posts. 3. Mr. Narender Hooda, learned counsel for the UHBVNL has argued that after the judgment was delivered on 14.07.2010 (A-2), the appellant has issued a show cause notice to the writ petitioner- respondents on 13.10.2010 alleging that the promotion given to the writ petitioner-respondents itself was not sustainable and it was illegal. The reason for issuance of show cause notice was that the writ petitioner-respondent was promoted as DHD on 22.08.1997 and Circle Drafts Man on 14.07.2005. It was admitted position that the person junior to the writ petitioner-respondents i.e. Mr. Dhanpat Singh Dahiya was promoted on 20.06.2006. 4. Having heard learned counsel, we find that the appellant has made an attempt to withdraw the order of promotion issued to the writ petitioner-respondents and that too after the pronouncement of the judgment. Such an action is wholly improper, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. We further find that the reason stated in the show cause notice is flimsy and would not constitute a valid basis to withdraw the promotion given to the writ petitioner-respondent. According to the show cause notice, the promotion of the writ petitioner-respondents touches the period when erstwhile rules use to govern the service conditions which related to HSEB. We raised pointed query to Mr. Narender Hooda and he could convincingly answered. The appellant has been irked LPA No.954 of 2011 (O&M) -3- by the view taken by this Court and such a show cause notice is absolutely unjustified. The appeal is without merit and thus, is liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 6. Keeping in view the dismissal of appeal on merit, we do not wish to pass any order on the application seeking condonation of delay of 263 days in filing of the appeal. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE May 30, 2011 Atul