CWP No.4770 of 2002 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C. W. P. No. 4770 of 2002 Date of Decision: 31 - 8 – 2010 Narender Singh ....Petitioner v. Union of India and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.B.S.Saini, Advocate for Mr.Premjit Kalia, Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondent No.1. Mr.Ram Chander, Sr. Central Govt. Standing Counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) In the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction that he be paid pay/arrears of pay, increments and allowances etc. from the date, he was notionally promoted as Sub Inspector i.e. 22.9.1997. Briefly stated, the petitioner was enrolled as a Constable in Border Security Force. He was subsequently promoted on the post of Head Constable and was working as a Driver in Jalalabad in Punjab. However, his Unit was detailed with Mountaineering Expedition at Chhawala Camp, New Delhi. While he was driving the vehicle of `Punjab Frontier', his CWP No.4770 of 2002 [2] vehicle met with an accident on Chhawala Bijwasan Road on 18.10.1992. A case FIR No.304/92 under Sections 279/338 IPC was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Najafgarh, New Delhi. In the above-said FIR, a charge-sheet/report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted against the petitioner in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. The petitioner was acquitted of the charges by the trial Court after a period of 8 years. Case of the respondent-Department is that due to pendency of criminal case, the petitioner was not promoted. However, later on promotion order was issued wherein it was stated that financial benefit shall accrue to the petitioner from the date he will assume charge on the post of Sub Inspector. However, the petitioner was notionally promoted as Sub Inspector w.e.f. 22.9.1997. In para 3 of the written statement, it has been stated as under:- “.... However, he was given the promotion on the rank of Sub Inspector on officiating basis w.e.f. 22/9/97 notionally i.e. from the date his juniors were promoted and no financial benefits have been given to the petitioner for the said period....” Due to pendency of criminal case, the petitioner could not be promoted earlier. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has not worked on promotional post. The principle of `No work, no pay' shall apply. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be given any financial benefit for the period he has not worked. Furthermore, this Court has got no territorial jurisdiction. The accident was caused in the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi High Court and the orders of promotion were communicated at Satrana (Rajasthan) where the petitioner was working. Therefore, this Court will not determine the issue of territorial jurisdiction after 8 years of admission of the writ petition. CWP No.4770 of 2002 [3] Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Union of India v. B.M. Jha, 2008(1) SLR 488 had held that where an employee had not worked on the promoted post and has been given notional promotion, principle of `No work, no pay' shall apply and he will not be entitled to salary. In para 5 of the judgment, it was held as under:- “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 and others v. D. P. Gupta and others, (1996) 7 SCC 533 and followed in the case of A. K. Soumini v. State Bank of Travancore, 2003 (8) JT (SC) 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 and Ors., 1999 (3) JT (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 CWP No.4770 of 2002 [4] 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, Principal Bench.” Hence, there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) August 31, 2010. JUDGE RC