IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 16855 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 15.04.2009 Raj Kumar Sharma .... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Gill, DAG, Punjab. Mr. G.S. Attariwala, Advocate, for respondent No.2. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner has filed the instant petition for quashing the order/letter dated 3.4.2008 (Annexure P-14), whereby his claim for enhanced salary of the post of Deputy Controller (Finance & Accounts) from 12.3.1982 to 7.11.1995 has been declined on the ground that he had not given option to join the provincialised services, and he had not worked on the said post for the said period, therefore, on the principle of `No work no pay', the arrears of the difference of pay cannot be paid to him. The petitioner was initially appointed as Accountant in the CWP No. 16855 of 2008 -2- office of Improvement Trust, Amritsar, on 12.6.1973. One Shri K.P. Gosain was also appointed as Accountant in the office of Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, on 12.5.1975. In the year 1982, the services of the Accounts Officer were provincialised. The employees, including the petitioner, were asked to opt for provincialised services. Undisputedly, Shri K.P. Gosain opted for the provincialised services, whereas the petitioner declined to opt for the same. Subsequently, Shri K.P. Gosain was promoted as Accounts Officer and then to the post of Deputy Controller (Finance & Accounts). The petitioner challenged the promotion order of Shri K.P. Gosain by filing CWP No. 466 of 1984 on the ground that he was junior to the petitioner. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 9.10.2002 (Annexure R-1). During the pendency of the said writ petition, the Government vide its order dated 17.8.2001 (Annexure P-1) accepted the request made by the petitioner, which was made lateron, for his absorption in the provincialised cadre, and keeping in view the fact that he was senior to Shri K.P. Gosain, the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Controller (Finance & Accounts) with all the consequential benefits from the date Shri K.P. Gosain was promoted as such. Undisputedly, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Accounts Officer in the year 1984 and to the post of Deputy Controller (Finance & Accounts) in the year 1995. He has been paid the salary for the promotional post of Deputy Controller (Finance & Accounts) from 7.11.1995 till the date of his retirement. CWP No. 16855 of 2008 -3- Now the dispute is only with regard to the payment of enhanced salary for the period from 12.3.1982 to 7.11.1995. It is admitted fact that during the said period, the petitioner did not work on the promotional post. It is also the admitted position that when services of the Accounts Officer were provincialised, the petitioner did not opt for provincialised services. Rather, he declined to opt for the same. The writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the promotion of Shri K.P. Gosain has also been dismissed by this Court. However, during the pendency of that petition, the State Government accepted the prayer of the petitioner for his absorption in the provincialised cadre and he was also given promotion as Deputy Controller (Finance & Accounts) from the date Shri K.P. Gosain was promoted. The petitioner has retired from service. He has been given all the retiral benefits, except for the enhanced salary for the aforesaid period. In my opinion, the petitioner is not entitled for the salary of the promotional post for the said period. He was not taken in the provincialised cadre, because he himself had declined to opt for the same. It was the fault of the petitioner, for which he cannot blame others. If subsequently in the year 2001, the Government had accepted his request and absorbed him in the provincialised cadre, he is not entitled for the salary for the aforesaid period on the promotional post, because he has not worked on the promotional post for the said period. The denial of promotion to him was not due to an illegal act of the department, but he himself had not opted for the provincialised cadre. Thus, in my opinion, the respondents have rightly declined the claim CWP No. 16855 of 2008 -4- of the petitioner for salary on the post of Deputy Controller (Finance & Accounts) for the period from 12.3.1982 to 7.11.1995 on the principle of `No work no pay'. In view of the above, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is, hereby, dismissed. April 15, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE