CWP Nos. 17817/2009 & 17837 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 27.7.2010 1.CWP No.17817 of 2009 Sunil Kumar ...Petitioner VERSUS Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd. & Ors …Respondents 2.CWP No.17837 of 2009 Jai Kumar Sharma ...Petitioner VERSUS Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd. & Ors …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) Keeping in view the controversy involved and with the consent of the counsel, these writ petitions are disposed of at motion stage by this order as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the writ petitions. The petitioners in both the writ petitions joined in the erstwhile CWP Nos. 17817/2009 & 17837 of 2009 2 Haryana State Electricity Board (now Haryana Power Generation Corporation ltd.) as work charge T-Mate. They passed matriculation examination and ITI diploma of two years in the trade of Turner. The petitioners were promoted retrospectively w.e.f. 11.1.1985, as Plant Attendant vide promotion orders dated 15.9.2006 and 4.2.2004, respectively with certain conditions. The petitioners are aggrieved of one of the Conditions No.5 whereby they have been denied the salary of promotional post retrospectively on the ground that they have 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 of 2007 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 CWP Nos. 17817/2009 & 17837 of 2009 3 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 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.” Both these writ petitions are accordingly disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions. Copy of this order be placed on record of each concerned file. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 27.7. 2010 MFK