Civil Writ Petition No. 4324 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 4324 of 2009 Date of decision:-30.8.2011 Gurmeet Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Addl.A.G. Punjab. RITU BAHRI J. This writ petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 14.7.2008 (Annexure P-6) whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of arrears of salary on her retrospective promotion has been denied. The petitioner has joined the Punjab Education Department as JBT Teacher on 3.8.1972 in District Sangrur. She was transferred from Government Primary School, Mahal Kalan, District Sangrur to Government Primary School, Pot, District Faridkot vide order dated 15.6.1986 read with order dated 08.7.1991 (Annexure P-1) and her seniority was remained intact in District Sangrur. The petitioner has retired on 31.1.2007 on completing her age of superannuation. She was promoted as Head Teacher vide order dated 20.4.2001 by the District Education Officer (E.E.), Sangrur. In District Sangrur, the petitioner was assigned seniority No.678, GPS, Tunga, Sangrur-I. Thereafter, she was Civil Writ Petition No. 4324 of 2009 -2- promoted vide order dated 20.4.2001 (Annexure P-2) as Head Teacher. The petitioner was not informed about this order and juniors to petitioner were allowed promotion and they were further promoted as Central Head Teachers vide order dated 17.8.2005 by respondent No.3. Smt. Joginder Kaur, who was at seniority No.639 was granted promotion as Central Head Teacher vide order dated 17.8.2005. Petitioner has made representation for grant of retrospective promotion of Central Head Teacher from the date of her juniors on the basis of their seniority in District Sangrur, vide legal notice dated 22.12.2007. She filed CWP No.2938 of 2008 claiming the benefit of promotion, which was disposed of on 27.2.2008 by giving direction to the respondents to take final decision. Petitioner's claim for promotion was accepted and she was allowed promotion to the post of Head Teacher w.e.f. 20.4.2001 and on the post of Center Head Teacher w.e.f. 17.8.2005 with notional pay fixation. Copy of the order is Annexure P-5. Her claim for arrears of salary has been rejected vide order dated 14.7.2008 (Annexure P-6). Mr. R.K. Arora, counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Sports Authority of India and another versus Central Administrative Tribunal and another in CWP No.14998 of 2009 decided on 06.11.2009 to contend that the principle of no work no pay is not applicable to cases where an employee has been willing to work but kept away from the work by the authorities for no fault of his. Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Addl.A.G. Punjab has supported the order passed by the Department as per the principle of no work no pay. The petitioner is not entitled to arrears of salary. The petitioner was transferred to District Faridkot and she had worked there. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully. Civil Writ Petition No. 4324 of 2009 -3- The petitioner was transferred to District Faridkot from Sangrur vide order dated 15.6.1986. She was confirmed employee. Her seniority was to remain intact in District Sangrur. Since her seniority was kept intact in District Sangrur vide order dated 8.7.1991 (Annexure P-1), she had a right to be promoted as Head Teacher on 20.4.2001 and subsequently as Center Head Teacher w.e.f. 17.8.2005. All her juniors to her working in District Sangrur have availed of their promotions. It is not denied by the State that the petitioner was at any fault so as to deprive her to work on a higher post. It is admitted by the respondents that junior to the petitioner were promoted as Head Teachers/Center Head Teachers. Since she was working in District Faridkot, therefore, she was not considered and not communicated of the same. The Division Bench of this Court in Sports Authority of India and another versus Central Administrative Tribunal and another (supra) has examined the principle of law laid down in Union of India versus K.V. Jankiraman 1991(4) SCC 109 wherein in paragraph 24 the Supreme Court has held as under :- “24. It was further contended on their behalf that the normal rule is “no work no pay”. Hence a person cannot be allowed to draw the benefits of a post the duties of which he has no discharged. To allow him to do so is against the elementary rule that a person is to be paid only for the work he has done and not for the work he has not done. As against this, it was pointed out on behalf of the concerned employees, that on many occasions even frivolous proceedings are instituted at the instance of interested persons, sometimes with a specific object of denying the promotion due, and the employee concerned is made to suffer both mental agony and privatations which are multiplied when he is also placed under suspension. When, therefore, at the end of such sufferings, he comes out with a clean bill, he has to be restored to all the benefits from Civil Writ Petition No. 4324 of 2009 -4- which he was kept away unjustly.” The same effect is in the judgments in Vasanto Rao Roman versus Union of India 1993(2) S.L.R. 289 and Harbans Singh versus Union of India 1995 SCC 471 wherein it has been held that due to administrative reasons if an employee is made to suffer he is entitled to arrears of emoluments. Her right to emoluments cannot be curtailed in the present case as the employee did not voluntarily absent herself from discharging the duties. On the other hand she has been continuously working in District Faridkot as JBT Teacher. Her seniority was kept intact. It was an administrative function of the Department to give her promotion when her turn came as per her seniority in District Sangrur. No explanation has been made out in the written statement as to why she was not promoted when her juniors were given promotions w.e.f. 20.4.2001 as Head Teachers and Central Head Teachers w.e.f. 17.08.2005. In view of the abovesaid reasons the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 14.7.2008 (Annexure P-6) is quashed and the petitioner is held entitle for payment of arrears of salary with all consequential benefits by promoting her as Head Teacher w.e.f. 20.4.2001 and on the post of Center Head Teacher w.e.f. 17.8.2005. 30.8.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE