CWP No. 3103 of 2007 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 10.9.2010 J.C.Aggarwal ...Petitioner VERSUS Haryana State Federation of Coop. Wholesale Consumer Stores, Ltd. …Respondent CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Namit Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Vijay Pal, Advocate for respondents. Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) The petitioner joined the Haryana State Federation of Consumers Cooperative Stores Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the Federation”) as Storekeeper on 10.1.1977. Various posts like Storekeepers, Assistants, Clerks and Salesman in various Central Cooperative Consumers Stores were being filled up by their respective managements at their own level and were having different pay scales and eligibility etc. With effect from 23.4.1979, employees of all the Consumer stores were merged in the Cadre of the Federation and their administrative control was taken over from their respective management by the respondent-Federation. In May, 1979, though a tentative seniority list was prepared and the petitioner was placed at Sr.No.19 of the seniority list, some of the employees from other management who became members of the service of the Federation on implementation of the Common Cadre Rule and were drawing less salary, CWP No. 3103 of 2007 (O&M) 2 were placed over and above the petitioner. Aggrieved of the action of the respondent-Federation, the petitioner filed CWP No.3847 of 1987 challenging the seniority list dated 28.12.1987 and also sought promotion as Assistant Manager with effect from the date one S.C.Jain junior to the petitioner was promoted. This writ petition was allowed vide order dated 16.2.2001 with the following directions:- “Taking into consideration all these facts, the petitioner could not be treated as junior to respondents no.2 to 7. He should have been equated senior to those respondents in the seniority list Annexure P-5 prepared by respondent no.1. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is partly allowed. The seniority Annexure P-5 is quashed. The petitioner be treated as senior to respondents no.2 to 7 and the seniority list be re- issued and prepared accordingly......” In so far as the claim for promotion is concerned, following directions were issued:- “So far as his prayer to promote him to the post of Asst. Manager w.e.f. from the date his junior have been promoted is concerned, the same is left open to be considered by respondent no.1 because according to respondent no.1 he did not possess five years experience when R.R.Kaushik was promoted as Asst. Manager on 4.2.1981. The petitioner will, however, be at liberty to approach CWP No. 3103 of 2007 (O&M) 3 the competent authority with regard to his claim for promotion which will be considered within a period of six months from the date of filling of representation, if any.” The aforesaid judgment was challenged in LPA No.2003 of 2001 by the respondent-Federation which resulted into dismissal. During the pendency of the LPA, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Manager with immediate effect vide order dated 10.3.2004 (Annexure P-2). However, the petitioner was granted deemed date of promotion w.e.f. 23.8.1979 i.e. the date when S.C.Jain was promoted but was denied the arrears, vide order dated 19.10.2005 (Annexure P-4). The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 19.10.2005 (Annexure P-4) to the extent arrears are refused. The only ground for denying the arrears to the petitioner is that he did not actually work on the post of Assistant Manager and thus, he is not entitled to arrears of salary. It is agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties that the controversy is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bani Singh Yadav, 2005 (1) SCT 355 wherein following observations have been made:- “14.By applying the ratio of the above noted judgments and orders to the facts of this case, we hold that the learned Single Judge did not commit any error by declaring that the appellant cannot take advantage of its own wrong and by quashing order dated 6.9.1985 to the extent of denial of arrears of pay and allowances to the respondent for CWP No. 3103 of 2007 (O&M) 4 the period from 5.2.1974 to 7.2.1979.” Similar observations have been made by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Karnail Singh vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and Ors., 2006(3) S.C.T. 276 as under:- “7.Therefore, for the failure of the authorities to consider the case for promotion of the petitioner at the appropriate time and consequently preventing him from working and also not to opt for the sealed cover procedure in case departmental proceedings were pending, the petitioner cannot be denied the monetary benefits of the higher posts of Internal Auditor to which promotion has already been granted by way of deemed date of promotion.” In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.10.2005 (Annexure P-4) to the extent it has denied arrears of pay to the petitioner is quashed. Consequently, the respondent is directed to release the arrears of salary to the petitioner from the deemed date of promotion within a period of three months. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 10.9. 2010 MFK Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter or not? YES