CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16849 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 18, 2009 Shakuntla Devi .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....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. H. N. Khanduja, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has challenged the order whereby he has been denied the arrears of pay and allowances, though has been granted promotion with effect from retrospective date. The petitioner, however, has been given benefit of his pay fixation and seniority from the retrospective date from which he had been so promoted. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16849 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: The petitioner was appointed as a Hindi Teacher on regular basis on .7.7.1972. He was assigned seniority No.20 as on 1.1.1990 in District Kaithal. The petitioner passed M.A in Hindi in 1982 and was appointed as Lecturer in the subject on 13.12.1995. Saroj Bala, another Hindi Teacher, working in the Government Senior Secondary School, Keroak (Kaithal) had joined on 7.7.1972 but was listed at Seniority List No.22 as on 1.1.1990 in District Kaithal. She, thus, was junior to the petitioner. Saroj Bala was promoted as Lecturer on 28.12.1994. The cases of promotion of the petitioner as well as Saroj Bala were sent by District Education Officer, Kaithal, together. There was no reason for not promoting the petitioner ahead of Saroj Bala, she being junior to the petitioner. However, this fact of promotion of Saroj Bala prior to the date of promotion to the petitioner was not in her knowledge. The petitioner learnt about the same, when she filed an application on 24.1.2008 for supply of information under the Right to Information Act. The copy of this application is annexed with the record as Annexure P-1. In response to this information, the respondents have passed an order on 6.8.2008, promoting the petitioner from the date when Saroj Bala, who was junior to her, was promoted as Lecturer through letter dated 26.12.1994. In this order, the petitioner has been held entitled to the benefit of pay fixation and seniority from the date her junior, Saroj Bala, was so promoted and had joined as Lecturer. She, however, has not been held entitled to any arrears of pay and allowances. Copy of this order dated 6.8.2008 is at Annexure P-2. This order is under challenge in the present writ petition. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16849 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: In the reply filed, it is stated that the petitioner was found entitled to promotion w.e.f. 26.12.1994 which was the date from which Smt.Saroj Bala was promoted and this order has been so passed on 6.8.2008. However, the action to deny arrears of pay and allowances for this period is justified on the ground of no work no pay. It is stated that the petitioner, however, has been granted the benefit of pay fixation and the seniority. The facts, as noticed above, would show that the petitioner was wrongly denied consideration for promotion from the date her junior was promoted. The petitioner had also been promoted as Lecturer w.e.f. 13.12.1995. She was entitled to promotion w.e.f. 26.12.1994. The case of the petitioner has been sent for promotion but somehow or the other she could not be promoted from the date she was entitled to. The respondents now in this background, can not be permitted to urge that the petitioner is not entitled to the arrears on the ground that she has not worked on the post. The respondents have kept her away from the work. The arrears are for the period from 26.12.1994 to 13.12.1995. The petitioner has not been able to explain delay on her part in making this approach. These arrears are due to her for the period from 1994 to 1995 but she has filed the writ petition in the year 2008. The doctrine of no work no pay relied upon by the respondents though may not have been available to the respondents as it was due to fault on their part that the petitioner could not earn promotion from the due date, but the delay on the part of the petitioner can also not be ignored. To balance the equity, it would be appropriate to direct the respondents to release the arrears, if any due, to the petitioner, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16849 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: restricting it to the period of three years and two months from the date of filing of the writ petition. It appears that the petitioner is entitled to one increment and it is not certain as to how much amount is payable as arrears. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. August 18,2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE