IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 1047/2008 Decided on:15.3. 2010 _____________________________________________ Raj Handa. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. For the petitioner : Mr. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral) In sequel to the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee, petitioner who was working as Senior Assistant, was promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade-II vide office order dated 24.12.2004. However, promotion was made on notional basis. In other words, he was not held entitled to the monetary benefits with effect from 1.5.2003. Petitioner made representation to the competent authority. However, the same was rejected by the competent authority on 28.7.2007 (Annexure A-7). Respondents have relied upon the provisions of FR 17 to deny the actual monetary benefits to the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? . 2 petitioner. Respondent-State has not chosen to file any reply. In this case, petitioner was always ready and willing to work on the higher post. In fact, he has been denied the right to work on the higher post with effect from 1.5.2003. In these circumstances, the principle of “no work no pay” shall not apply. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others versus K.V. Jankiraman and others, (1991) 4 SCC 109 have held as under: “We are not much impressed by the contentions advanced on behalf of the authorities. The normal rule of "no work no pay" is not applicable to cases such as the present one where the employee although he is willing to work is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his. This is not a case where the employee remains away from work for his own reasons, although the work is offered to him. It is for this reason that F.R. 17(1) will also be inapplicable to such cases.” In view of the definitive law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-7 dated 28.7.2007 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to release monetary benefits in favour of petitioner with effect from 1.5.2003 with all the consequential benefits. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 15.3. 2010 *awasthi*