LPA No.489 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.489 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision 26.05.2011 Shobha Ram Raturi -----Appellant Versus Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and others ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. K.G. Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellant. 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 filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 14.09.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the order of premature retirement was not sustainable. The aforesaid directions have been issued by the learned Single Judge after examining the service record of the appellant. The only issue which has been raised by the appellant in the instant appeal is that he is entitled to payment of arrears of salary from the date when he was retired i.e. 31.12.2002 till the date he attains the age of superannuation i.e. 31.12.2005. However, the learned Single Judge has granted all the benefits of LPA No.489 of 2011 (O&M) -2- service to the appellant except the arrears of salary by invoking the maxim no work no pay. In the facts and circumstances, the discretion has been exercised by the learned Single Judge which cannot be regarded without any basis or substance. 2. Having heard learned counsel, we are of the considered view that consequential benefits granted by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted merely because arrears of salary has not been given. The appellant cannot now be sent to discharge the duty for a period of 3 years as he has attained the age of 58 years in 2005. In other words, he is not available to discharge his duty on the post of Commercial Assistant in a Sub Division of Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited. Once there is no possibility of taking work from him, it is not prudent to pass an order for his arrears of pay. There is, thus, no ground to admit the appeal. The discretion cannot be said to have been exercised without any reasons. 3. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 4. In view of the dismissal of appeal on merit, we do not wish to pass any order on the application seeking condonation of delay of 7 days. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE May 26, 2011 Atul