C.W.P. No. 3617 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 3617 of 2007 Date of decision : 24.4.2008. ... Gulab Singh ................ Petitioner vs. The State of Haryana and others .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner Sh. Harish Rathee, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. ... Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) Vide order dated 13.7.2006 (P-7), the petitioner was promoted from the post of Clerk to that of Assistant w.e.f. 25.6.1998. In the promotion order, it was further mentioned as under:- “but this official will not be given the pay scale of the post of Assistant from the date of 25.6.1998 till the date of promotion, because this official from 25.6.1998 till the date of promotion has not worked as Assistant.” The petitioner is aggrieved by the abovesaid stipulation in his promotion order. It is contention of counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner failed to get promotion in the year 1998, though C.W.P. No. 3617 of 2007 -2- eligible, on account of negligence of Administrative authorities, as such, benefit of actual salary and other benefits cannot be denied to him. In response to notice issued, reply has been filed, wherein it has been stated that when promotion of Ranbir Singh was made in the year 1998, as per the seniority list existing at that time, abovesaid employee was senior to the petitioner. Thereafter, on receipt of objections, seniority list was rectified in the month of June 2002 and at that time petitioner was shown senior to Ranbir Singh. It has further been stated that as the petitioner has not worked against the post, in view of the principle of 'no work, no pay' he is not entitled to get benefit of actual salary for the period he has not worked. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to interfere at the instance of the petitioner. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Union of India and another Vs. Tarsem Lal and others (2006) 10 Supreme Court Cases 145, have categorically stated that in cases of retrospective promotion, where the promoted employee has not worked against the post, he will not be granted any benefit of salary etc., in view of principle of 'no work, no pay'. We feel that the present dispute is squarely covered by ratio of the judgment referred to above. However, we make it very clear that the petitioner shall be entitled to get all consequential benefits, if not already granted, i.e. pay fixation, benefit of increments etc., to which he would have been entitled, without getting actual financial benefit. Respondents are directed to refix his pay etc., accordingly. It is necessary to mention that seniority already stood granted to the C.W.P. No. 3617 of 2007 -3- petitioner from the date of his retrospective promotion. Disposed of. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge ( K.C. Puri ) 24.4.2008. Judge chug