CWP No.13211 of 2007 :1: In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision:19.03.2009 Ram Dass and others ... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.SB Nagpal, Advocate,for the petitioners. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for the respondents. -- PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The petitioners were working as Class-IV in the Education Department in various schools in different districts in the State of Punjab. The petitioners filed Civil Writ Petition No.7586 of 1999 and Civil Writ Petition No.12640 of 1999 seeking promotion to Class-III post primarily, on the grounds that persons junior to them have been promoted by ignoring their claim. These writ petitions came to be decided vide judgment dated 06.01.2003 with the following directions:- “In view of the above, these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to be CWP No.13211 of 2007 :2: considered for promotion from class IV to class III from the date the persons junior to them have been promoted. If the petitioners are found eligible to be promoted, their promotion shall be released within a period of 3 months from today. The petitioners shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits.” The aforesaid judgment was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the SLP was dismissed. In the meantime, the petitiones filed COCP No.1415 of 2003. During the pendency of this contempt petition, a statement was made by Mr.M.C. Berry, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, that the petitioners have been promoted and they will be allowed to join on the promoted post within a period of one month. He has further made a statement that the decision shall be taken regarding consequential benefits within one month. On this statement, the contempt petition was disposed of vide order dated 01.12.2003. Consequently, the respondents decided regarding consequential benefits in terms of the judgment dated 06.01.2003 by passing the impugned order dated 20.12.2006 (Annexure P-12), whereby the petitioners have been denied the financial benefits on retrospective promotion. The relevant part of the order is reproduced as under:- CWP No.13211 of 2007 :3: “..............I had reached to the conclusion that no arrear of pay is payable to the petitioners and because of decision of Basant Rao of 1993 and State of Haryana & others Vs. O.P. Gupta, decision dated 12.1.1996, the decision does not apply, hence, claim of the petitioners is rejected.” Ms.Tuli, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for the respondents has also relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Union of India Vs. B.M. Jha, (2007) 11 Supreme Court Cases, 632, wherein the following observations have been made:- “5.We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It was argued by learned counsel for the respondent that when a retrospective promotion is given to an incumbent normally he is entitled to all benefits flowing therefrom. However, this Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. O.P. Gupta & Ors., [1996] 7 SCC 533 and followed in the case of A.K. Soumini v. State Bank of Travancore JT (2003) 8 SC CWP No.13211 of 2007 :4: 35 has taken the view that even in case of a notional promotion from retrospective date, it cannot entitle the employee to arrears of salary as the incumbent has not worked in the promotional post. These decisions relied on the principle of no work no pay. The learned Division Bench in the impugned judgment has placed reliance on the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. K.V.L. Narasimha Rao & Ors., J.T.(1999) 3 SC 205. In our view, the High Court did not examine that case in detail. In fact, in the said judgment the view taken by the High Court of grant of salary was set aside by this Court. Therefore, we are of the view that in the light of the consistent view taken by this Court in the abovementioned cases, arrears of salary cannot be granted to the respondent in view of the principle of no work no pay in case of retrospective promotion. Consequently, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 17.5.2000 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court as also the order dated 11.1.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principle Bench.” Based upon the aforesaid judgment, it is vehemently argued on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners are not entitled to any CWP No.13211 of 2007 :5: financial benefits for having not worked on the promotional posts. It is further contended that the petitioners shall be entitled to seniority from the retrospective date of promotion and their pay will also be fixed by giving them notional benefits by stepping up of pay, pay revisions etc., but without any arrears of pay. In so far as the proposition of law laid down in the judgment referred to above is concerned, there can not be any dispute. In the present case, this judgment is not be applicable. The right of the petitioners flows from the judgment dated 06.01.2003 passed in CWP No.7586 of 1999 wherein this Court specifically granted all consequential benefits. The expression consequential benefits includes monetary benefits unless excluded by the Court by a specific direction. The judgment dated 06.01.2003 stands affirmed in SLP which fact has been admitted by the respondents even in the reply filed. The respondents cannot nullify the judgment of this Court which is affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Even if in another case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a different view that will have no application where the judgment stands concluded between the parties. This is settled proposition of law. In view of the above circumstances, the impugned order is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to release all consequential benefits including the arrears of salary in implementation of the judgment dated 06.01.2003 from the CWP No.13211 of 2007 :6: retrospective date of promotion granted to the petitioners, within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the competent authority. No costs. 19.03.2009 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO