Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anil Sandhir vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 12 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035880
CWP-17259-2016 2024:PHHC:035880
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
232
CWP-17259-2016
Date of decision: 12.03.2024
Anil Sandhir ...Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr. R.K. Arora and
Mr. Jugam Arora, Advocates for the petitioner
Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab
***
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J.
1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari/mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or directions for
quashing the action of the respondents in not releasing/finalizing the ACP case of
the petitioner on completion of 14 years of service in the cadre of Supdt Grade II.
Further prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of direction to the respondents to
release the arrears of salary on retrospective promotion to the petitioner as Supdt
Grade II and Administrative Officer w.e.f 27.09.2010.
2. Learned counsel submits that during the pendency of the present
petition, on completion of 14 years of service in the cadre of Supdt Grade II, the
petitioner has been granted ACP scales, vide order dated 19.04.2017, Annexure R-
1. However, the higher pay scale has not been granted in terms of the scheme,
Annexure P-5, for which, he on instructions submits that the petitioner will file a
representation, which may be directed to be decided in a time bound manner.
3. With respect to second prayer of the petitioner where challenge is to
order dated 16.09.2015 to the extent it restricted the benefit to be granted
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035880
CWP-17259-2016 2024:PHHC:035880
notionally on account of the fact that charge sheet was pending against him, he
places reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of
Satyavir Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, 2014 (4) S.C.T 233, Annexure
P-13, the relevant para of which reads thus:-
"19. Keeping in view the principles we have formulated
above which are culled out above from the catena of
judgments, we have to find the outcome to the present
case. The facts of the case have already been noticed
above. It is clear there from that the appellant was not
promoted earlier, when his juniors were promoted because
of the departmental enquiries pending against him. No
doubt, these enquiry proceedings have been dropped on
the ground of delay. We were shown the original record
containing this decision. The reason given is that there is a
14 years delay in conducting the enquiry which would act
to the prejudice of the appellant if the inquiries continue.
Once that fact is accepted by the Department itself and on
that basis the enquiries were dropped, the net effect
thereof would be that the appellant was exonerated of the
charges. As no penalty has emanated from these charge-
sheets, it is for this reason the respondents have
themselves given him the promotion from back date. In
such circumstances, denial of actual salary and grant of
only deemed promotion on the principle of 'no work no
pay' may not be appropriate. Admittedly, the juniors who
were granted the benefit of promotion received the salary
and if the appellant is deprived thereof, it would amount
to hostile discrimination qua him. We are, therefore, of
the opinion that the principle of 'no work no pay' cannot
be made applicable in the instant case and the appellant
would be entitled to salary. There is a Division Bench
judgment of this Court in case Vidya Parkash Harnal Vs.
State of Haryana 1995(3) S.C.T. 785 which is squarely
applicable in the present case. The Court negated the
argument predicated on the basis of principle of 'no work
no pay' which is to the following effect:-
"7. Similarly, the argument that the petitioner
was not entitled to the grant of emoluments on
the principle of 'No work No pay' is apparently
mis-conceived and based upon wrong notions of
law. If a civil servant is not offered the work to
which he was legally entitled, he cannot be
deprived of the wages for the post to which he
subsequently is held entitled to. Permitting such
a course to be adopted would be encouraging
the imposition of double penalty, that is, firstly
by declining the civil servant his right of
promotion and secondly by depriving him of the
emoluments to which he would have been
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035880
CWP-17259-2016 2024:PHHC:035880
entitled to upon promotion which subsequently
is considered in his favour. Deprivation to work
against the post to which a civil servant is
entitled on promotion is always at the risk and
responsibility of the State and cannot be made a
basis for depriving such a civil servant of the
emoluments to which he was entitled, had he
been promoted in accordance with the rules at
the time when he became eligible for such
promotion. The Courts cannot ignore the
magnitude of the sufferings and the pains to
which a civil servant is subjected on account of
deprivation of the monetary benefits particularly
in this age of skyrocketing prices and non
availability of essential requirements of
livelihood. The Court cannot shut its eyes and
forget the holocaust of economic deprivation to
the petitioner and his dependants. Such a
deprivation might have upset the career of the
dependants, depriving the society of the services
of such youth and budding dependants or
children of the petitioner. The executive once
being satisfied that a civil servant was entitled
to the promotion with retrospective effect
cannot deprive him of the benefits of salary
accruing on account of such promotion from an
early date without assigning valid, cogent and
specific reasons. The order impugned in this
case by which the petitioner/appellant was
deprived of his right to claim back wages is
admittedly non-speaking without assigning any
justification or cogent and specific reasons."
We thus allow this appeal and set aside the impugned
order. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the
petitioner stands allowed. As a consequence, the
appellant shall be entitled to the arrears of pay and
allowances as well from 05.07.1994 to 31.01.2006 as
Divisional Employment Officer and from 01.02.2006
to 09.04.2008 as Deputy Director (Employment). The
arrears shall be calculated and paid to him within a
period of one month from today."
4. In another case Sports Authority of India and another vs. Central
Administrative Tribunal and another, CWP-14998-2009 decided on
06.11.2009, Annexure P-10, it was observed thus:
"There can be no quarrel with the proposition that
ordinarily arrears of salary cannot be granted in case of
retrospective proposition. Two short questions, which
arise for our consideration, are (a) whether there can be
any exceptions to the principle of "no work no pay" and
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035880
CWP-17259-2016 2024:PHHC:035880
(b) whether the case of respondent No.2 is covered by any
such exceptions.
xx xx xx
The perusal of the aforesaid authorities make it clear the
principle of 'no work, no pay' cannot be treated as an
inflexible principle to which there are no exceptions. It has
been consistently held that when the employee has been
wrongly denied the promotion for no fault of his due to
some lapse on behalf of the employer, the principle of 'no
work, no pay' will have no application. Therefore, the
question as to whether there are any exceptions to the
principle of 'no work, no pay' will be replied in the
affirmative. The second question will also be answered in
the affirmative as in the present case admittedly the
respondent no.2 was denied promotion for no fault of his.
As has already been pointed out, respondent no.2 was
denied the promotion as his name was omitted from the
seniority list due to inadvertence which has been admitted
by the petitioner employer. Therefore, the principle of 'no
work, no pay' will have no application in the present case.
For this reason, the impugned order does not warrant any
interference."
5. Learned counsel submits that the case of the petitioner is on a better
footing, as the charge sheet against him was dropped vide order dated 08.04.2015,
upon him having been acquitted in the FIR by the Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide
judgment dated 11.08.2014, whereafter, he was reinstated on 17.07.2015. Thus, he
was entitled to grant of arrears of salary on his retrospective promotion w.e.f.
27.09.2010.
6. Learned State counsel is unable to controvert the aforesaid factual
position or cite any contrary law. However, regarding the first limited prayer, he
has no objection.
7. In view of the aforesaid and without commenting upon the merits of
the case, the present petition is hereby disposed of in terms of the judgment in
Satyavir Singh (supra). Insofar as the prayer for seeking benefit of placement in
the higher pay scale in terms of scheme is concerned, a direction is passed that in
case they submit a representation within a period of four weeks, the same shall be
considered and decided by the respondents taking into account the pleas raised,
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035880
CWP-17259-2016 2024:PHHC:035880
within a period of four months and if found entitled, necessary benefit be granted
to him forthwith. However, in the eventuality of the relief being denied, a
speaking order be passed, after associating him therewith.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
12.03.2024
G Arora
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035880
5 of 5
