[Cites 20, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hardev Singh Sodhi vs State Of Punjab And Others on 9 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-8046-2022 (O&M)
Reserved on 28.11.2025
Pronounced on 09.12.2025
Uploaded on 10.12.2025
Hardev Singh Sodhi .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Argued by : Mr. G.S. Bal, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate and
Mr. Avtar Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Satnampreet Singh Chauhan, DAG, Punjab.
****
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
1. The petitioner, who is a person with disability (PwD)
having disability of more than 75% on the upper right limb, has
approached this Court by filing the instant petition under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari,
quashing the order dated 21.11.2019 (Annexure P-11), whereby while
reviewing the order dated 17.10.2018 (Annexure P-9), the arrears of
pay for the period from 01.06.2014 to 31.05.2015 have been declined.
Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought for grant of arrears for the
said period, along with 18% compound interest, and also for grant of
interest on the delayed payments of retiral benefits.
2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the adjudication of
the present lis, are that the petitioner was selected and appointed as
1 of 17
CWP-8046-2022 (O&M) -2-
Block Development and Panchayat Officer in Rural Development and
Panchayats Department, Punjab, against Handicapped Quota and joined
as such on 01.06.2001. While the petitioner was in service, an FIR
No.92 dated 08.06.2004 under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC was
registered at Police Station Division No.7, Ludhiana against the
petitioner and one Rattanjit Kaur daughter of Sh. Balwant Singh.
Thereafter, the petitioner and Rattanjit Kaur were convicted and
sentenced by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, vide
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.08.2012, to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 02 years with a fine of Rs.5,000/-
and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 06
months. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said judgement of
conviction and order of sentence dated 23.08.2012 before the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and the conviction and sentence
of the petitioner was stayed vide order dated 11.03.2014 (Annexure P-
5).
3. On the basis of the afore-mentioned conviction and
sentence, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated
30.05.2014 (Annexure P-6), without considering the fact that the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence has already been stayed.
The said order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by
filing CWP No.12071 of 2014 (Hardev Singh Sodhi Vs. State of Punjab
and another) and during the pendency of said writ petition, the appeal
preferred by the petitioner against conviction was disposed of by the
learned Appellate Court vide judgement dated 12.02.2015 and the
petitioner was acquitted from the charge framed under Section 467 of
2 of 17
CWP-8046-2022 (O&M) -3-
IPC but his conviction under Sections 468 and 471 of IPC was
maintained, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on probation
for a period of 02 years after furnishing probation bonds of Rs.20,000/-
with one surety of the like amount.
4. The Writ Petition filed by the petitioner against the order
of dismissal was disposed of by this Court, vide judgement dated
29.11.2017 (Annexure P-7) by observing as under :-
"There is no dispute as regards the factual position
that the impugned order of dismissal was passed solely
upon conviction of the petitioner. It has been conceded by
learned State counsel that no separate departmental
proceeding had been initiated against the petitioner.
Having heard counsel for the parties at length, this
Court is of the considered view that the impugned order of
dismissal dated 30.05.2014 (Annexure P-5) cannot sustain
and a case is made out for remand to the competent
authority for passing an order afresh.
Such view is being taken for the following reasons:
In the impugned order, it has been recited that in
pursuance to an appeal preferred by the petitioner
against his conviction, only, the sentence imposed upon
him has been suspended by the Appellate Court. Such
observation and finding is perverse. In this regard, a
reference may be made to the order dated 11.03.2014
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana
and placed on record and appended as Annexure P-3
along with the writ petition and the operative part of
which reads in the following terms.
"Perusal of the judgment of learned trial-court
reveals that there is a dispute between two private
parties qua the execution of the will dated 4.1.1996
and as per the allegations, the present appellant
Hardev Singh signed that will as a witness. So as
per the allegations, the conviction of the present
appellant is not relating to his official duty and in
such a situation, the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab
and Haryana in case titled as Jasvir Singh Vs. State
of Punjab 2009(4) Criminal Court Cases Page 525
has held that stay of conviction during the pendency
of appeal is permissive. Hence, this application is
allowed and operation of conviction and order to
sentence under appeal dated 23.8.2012 passed by
the court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate I Class,
3 of 17
CWP-8046-2022 (O&M) -4-
Ludhiana is hereby stayed till the disposal of this
appeal.
This appeal is not listed for arguments. Now
adjourned to 23.4.2014 for arguments.
Sd/-
Sukhdev Singh
Addl. Sessions Judge,
Ludhiana 11.3.2014"
Clearly, it was not only the order of sentence but
conviction itself had been stayed by the Appellate Court.
On a pointed query having been put to learned State
counsel, it stands admitted that State had not preferred
any appeal/revision against the order of staying conviction
of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the very basis
of passing of the impugned order of dismissal does not
exist. Order of dismissal dated 30.05.2014 (Annexure P-5)
is accordingly set aside.
There is yet another aspect which would require
notice. Against the judgment of conviction, two separate
appeals arose i.e one on behalf of the present petitioner
and the second on behalf of co-accused/convict Rattanjit
Kaur. Both the criminal appeals bearing No. 156 dated
01.09.2012 (Rattanjit Kaur and others Vs. State of Punjab)
and criminal appeal No. 158 dated 08.09.2012 (Hardev
Singh Vs State) came to be decided by the Appellate Court
vide common judgment dated 12.02.2015, which has been
placed on record today as Annexure P-9. Perusal of the
same reveals that the appeals preferred by the present
petitioner as also Rattanjit Kaur, co-accused/convict have
been partly accepted and they stand acquitted from the
charge under Section 467 IPC but their conviction under
Sections 468, 471 IPC has been maintained. However,
considering the circumstances of the case, the petitioner as
also Rattanjit Kaur, have been ordered to be released on
probation for a period of 2 years upon furnishing requisite
probation bonds with one surety of the like amount.
In other words, even though the petitioner as of date
stands convicted for offences under Sections 468, 471 IPC,
but he has been granted benefit of probation.
Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
reads in the following terms:
12. Removal of disqualification attaching to
conviction.-- Notwithstanding anything contained
in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence
and dealt with under the provisions of section 3 or
section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any,
attaching to a conviction of an offence under such
law:
4 of 17
CWP-8046-2022 (O&M) -5-
Provided that nothing in this section shall
apply to a person who, after his release under
section 4 is subsequently sentenced for the original
offence.
Keeping in view the facts discussed above, wherein
an order of dismissal had been passed erroneously on the
basis that the only order of sentence had been suspended
as opposed to his conviction having been stayed vide order
dated 11.03.2014 and coupled with the fact that even
though the petitioner as of date stands convicted for
offences under Sections 468, 471 IPC but has been
granted benefit of probation, the instant writ petition is
disposed of with the directions to respondent No. 1 to pass
an order afresh in the matter.
The exercise of re-consideration and passing of the
order afresh be completed with within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order.
It is, however, made clear that the petitioner would
not be released the consequential benefits upon setting
aside of the impugned order dated 30.05.2014 (Annexure
P-5) and the same would be subject to outcome of the fresh
order that is to be passed as directed by this Court.
Disposed of."
5. In pursuance to the said order, respondent No.1 passed
order dated 17.07.2018 (Annexure R-2) granting all the pensionary
benefits to the petitioner upto 31.05.2014 by observing as under:-
"5. Inspite of the above said facts of this case, a
departmental committee was constituted to report in this
matter. This committee, after considering the order of
High Court dated 29.11.2017 and advice of A.G. Punjab
submitted its report that the petitioner should be retired
from service and release his pensionary benefit.
Accordingly matter was submitted to the competent
authority and competent authority agreed to retire the
petitioner from Govt. Service and release his pensionary
benefits. Thus Sh. Hardev Singh Sodhi, BDPO, was
ordered to be retired on 31.05.2014 and released his
pensionary benefits.
SAS Nagar (ANURAG VERMA)
Dated 17.07.2018 Financial Commissioner & Secretary,
Rural Development & Panchayat
Department Punjab."
5 of 17
CWP-8046-2022 (O&M) -6-
6. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representation dated
23.07.2018 by stating that he was employed in the disabled category
and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has extended the period of age in
service as 60 years and as such, he be reinstated from 30.05.2014 on
duty and be retired on 31.05.2015. The said representation of the
petitioner was accepted by respondent No.1, vide order dated
17.10.2018 (Annexure P-9), by granting all the due benefits of service
to the petitioner upto 31.05.2015 (completion of 60 years of age in
service). The concluding para of the said order reads as under:-
"7. That Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided the SLP No.
10610 of 2013 in favour of Sh. Hardev Singh Sodhi, Block
Development and Panchayat officer (Retd.). In the light of
this decision, as per the directions of the Personnel
Department issued vide bearing No.17/20/2010-2PP/2/132
dated 19.11.2014, the age of the retirement of the disabled
employees has been extended upto 60 years.
8. That this department while giving the extension of one
year in the service of Sh. Hardev Singh Sodhi, Block
Development and Panchayat officer had imposed
condition that in case Hon'ble Supreme Court decide the
case in his favour then action shall be taken accordingly.
In such a situation, after consideration by the competent
authority, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and in the light of instructions issued by
the Personnel Development, Sh. Hardev Singh Sodhi,
Block Development and Panchayat Officer is being retired
from 31.05.2015 with all the benefits of service.
SAS Nagar
Dated 17.10.2018
Sd/- Anurag Verma
Financial Commissioner &
Secretary to Punjab Government,
Rural Development and Panchayat
Department."
7. Since the necessary benefits arising out of the orders dated
17.07.2018 (Annexure R-2) and 17.10.2018 (Annexure P-9) were not
6 of 17
CWP-8046-2022 (O&M) -7-
released to the petitioner, therefore, he submitted an application dated
09.08.2019 for releasing the said benefits. However, respondent No.1,
vide order dated 21.11.2019 (Annexure P-11) reviewed the earlier order
dated 17.10.2018 (Annexure P-9) and denied the benefit of pay and
allowances for the period from 01.06.2014 to 31.05.2015 on the ground
that the petitioner has not performed duties during the said period on
the principle of 'no work no pay'. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an
application dated 17.03.2021 (Annexure P-12) for reviewing the order
dated 21.11.2019, however, the said application has been rejected by
the respondents vide order dated 12.05.2022 (Annexure R-4), which
has been passed after the filing of the present petition.
8. Aggrieved against the order dated 21.11.2019 (Annexure
P-11), the petitioner has filed the instant petition. The petitioner is
further claiming interest on the delayed payment(s) of retiral dues and
in para 12 of the writ petition, the details of the amounts received by the
petitioner have been given, which read as under:-
Details Amount Due on Paid Interest Interest
Rs. @ 12@ @ 18%
Gratuity 9,54,888/- 30.09.2015 17.03.2021 6,39,775/- 9,59,641/-
Leave 1,08,028/- 30.09.2015 28.09.2020 65,880/- 0,98,820/-
Encashment
Pension Prov./ 01.07.2015 17.01.2020/ 3,61,538/- 7,23,075/-
Regular 13.04.2021
Salary 7,00,000/- 1.05.2015 Till date 5,88,000/- 8,82,000/-
Total 26,43,536/-
9. Reply by way of affidavit of Ms. Baljinder Kaur, Under
Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Rural Development
and Panchayats, Punjab, on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, has been
filed, wherein the factual position, as narrated above, has not been
7 of 17
CWP-8046-2022 (O&M) -8-
disputed, however, it has been stated that before passing the impugned
order advice of Legal Remembrancer, Department of Legal and
Legislative Affairs, Punjab, was sought and on the basis of the said
advice, the impugned order has been passed and keeping in view the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paluru
Ramkrishnaniah Vs. Union of India : 1989(2) SCC 541, the petitioner
is not entitled for the grant of salary for the period from 01.06.2014 to
31.05.2015 as he remained dismissed from his services and did not
work during the said period.
10. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that
vide orders dated 17.07.2018 (Annexure R-2) and 17.10.2018
(Annexure P-9), the petitioner has been held entitled for all the service
benefits, including pay and allowances for the period from 01.06.2014
to 31.05.2015, however, the order dated 17.10.2018 has been reviewed
by the same authority (successor in office), vide order dated 21.11.2019
(Annexure P-11) wherein it has been stated that the petitioner is not
entitled for the salary for the period from 01.06.2014 to 31.05.2015. He
submitted that the successor in office cannot review the orders passed
by his predecessor. He further submitted that principle of 'no work no
pay' would not be applicable in the present case as the petitioner was
willing to perform his duties, however, he was divested by the
respondents and, therefore, cannot be denied the pay and allowances for
the said period. He further submitted that while passing the said order
neither any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor an
opportunity of personal hearing was afforded and the same was passed
in violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submitted
8 of 17
CWP-8046-2022 (O&M) -9-
that since the retiral dues of the petitioner have been released after a
considerable delay, therefore, he is entitled for grant of interest on the
delayed payment(s) of pensionary dues in view of the law laid down by
a Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab :
1997(3) S.C.T. 468 and a Coordinate Bench in J.S. Cheema Vs. State
of Haryana and others : 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355.
11. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the
claim of the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner has not
performed his duties for the period from 01.06.2014 to 31.05.2015,
therefore, he is not entitled for the grant of pay and allowances for the
said period and since the matter was pending before this Court and in
the Appellate Court, therefore, although some delay has occurred in
releasing the pensionary benefits of the petitioner but the said delay is
not intentional, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of
interest on the delayed payment of pensionary benefits.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
13. The only question that arises for determination in the
present case is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for the grant of
pay and allowances for the period from 01.06.2014 to 31.05.2015 and
interest on the delayed payment(s) of pensionary benefits or not?
14. The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner was
appointed as Block Development and Panchayat Officer in Rural
Development and Panchayats Department, Punjab, against
Handicapped Quota on 01.06.2001. While the petitioner was in service,
an FIR No.92 dated 08.06.2004 under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC was
9 of 17
CWP-8046-2022 (O&M) -10-
registered at Police Station Division No.7, Ludhiana against the
petitioner and one Rattanjit Kaur daughter of Sh. Balwant Singh and
thereafter, the petitioner and Rattanjit Kaur were convicted and
sentenced by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, vide
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.08.2012 as
detailed in the earlier part of this judgment. The petitioner filed an
appeal against the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated
23.08.2012 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and
his conviction and sentence was stayed vide order dated 11.03.2014
(Annexure P-5).
15. Pursuant to his conviction, the petitioner was dismissed
from service vide order dated 30.05.2014 (Annexure P-6) without
considering the fact that the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence had already been stayed. The said order was challenged by
him before this Court by filing CWP No.12071 of 2014 (Hardev Singh
Sodhi Vs. State of Punjab and another). In the meanwhile, the appeal
preferred by the petitioner was disposed of by the learned Appellate
Court, vide judgement dated 12.02.2015, and the petitioner was
acquitted under Section 467 of IPC but his conviction under Sections
468 and 471 of IPC was maintained, and he was ordered to be released
on probation. The writ petition filed by the petitioner against the order
of dismissal, was partly allowed and was disposed of by this Court, vide
judgement dated 29.11.2017 (Annexure P-7), by holding that the
dismissal of the petitioner was ordered solely on the basis of conviction
which was already stayed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Ludhiana, along with order of sentence and directions were issued to
10 of 17
CWP-8046-2022 (O&M) -11-
the respondents to reconsider the matter and pass a fresh order. It was
also observed that the petitioner would not be released the
consequential benefits upon setting aside of the impugned order dated
30.05.2014 (Annexure P-5) and the same would be subject to outcome
of the fresh order which is to be passed by the competent authority.
16. In pursuance to the said order, respondent No.1 passed an
order dated 17.07.2018 (Annexure R-2) granting all the pensionary
benefits to the petitioner upto 31.05.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner
submitted representation dated 23.07.2018 and stated that he be
reinstated from 01.06.2014 on duty and be retired on 31.05.2015 as he
was employed in the disabled category and as per the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the age of the retirement of the disabled
employees has been extended upto 60 years. The said representation
was accepted by respondent No.1, vide order dated 17.10.2018
(Annexure P-9), and the petitioner was granted all the due benefits of
service upto 31.05.2015 (completion of 60 years of age in service).
Since the benefits arising out of the orders dated 17.07.2018 (Annexure
R-2) and 17.10.2018 (Annexure P-9) were not released by the
respondents, the petitioner submitted an application dated 09.08.2019
for releasing the said benefits. However, respondent No.1, vide order
dated 21.11.2019 (Annexure P-11), reviewed its earlier order dated
17.10.2018 (Annexure P-9) and denied the benefit of pay and
allowances to the petitioner for the period from 01.06.2014 to
31.05.2015 on the principle of 'no work no pay'. Thereafter, the
petitioner submitted an application dated 17.03.2021 (Annexure P-12)
for reviewing the order dated 21.11.2019, however, the said application
11 of 17
CWP-8046-2022 (O&M) -12-
has been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 12.05.2022
(Annexure R-4), during the pendency of the present petition.
17. The petitioner had earlier filed CWP No.13523 of 2012
(Hardev Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others) seeking benefit of two
years of service being belonging to disabled category, in view of the
instructions dated 16.02.1996 and 17.01.2001. The said writ petition
was allowed by this Court vide order dated 01.12.2012 in terms of
earlier judgment passed in CWP No.7233 of 2010 titled as Bhupinder
Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 25.05.2011 (Annexure
P-1). LPA and SLP preferred against the said judgment were dismissed
vide orders dated 14.01.2014 (Annexure P-3) and 16.09.2014
(Annexure P-4).
18. In the present case, the petitioner was held entitled for the
pay and allowances and all the retiral dues upto 30.05.2015, vide order
dated 17.07.2018 (Annexure R-2) and 17.10.2018 (Annexure P-9),
however, the order dated 17.10.2018 (Annexure P-9) has been reviewed
by the successor in office, vide order dated 21.11.2019 (Annexure P-
11), in violation of the principles of natural justice, which is not
permissible in law. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon judgment
of this Court in Amit Kumar Chakraborty Vs. Haryana Power
Generation Corporation Ltd. and others : 2024 NCPHHC 14268,
wherein it has been held that the successor in office cannot review the
orders passed by his predecessor. To the similar effect are the
judgments of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.3046 of
2007 titled Hoshiar Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and
others, decided on 15.09.2010; Bachan Kaur Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli
12 of 17
CWP-8046-2022 (O&M) -13-
Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others : 2025 NCPHHC 104333 and
Gaganpreet Singh and others Vs. Punjab State Grains Procurement
Corporation Ltd and others : 2025 NCPHHC 106692.
19. Further, in the criminal case, the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence was stayed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Ludhiana, vide order dated 11.03.2014, and despite that, the petitioner
was dismissed from service and thereafter the said criminal case was
concluded by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Ludhiana, vide judgment dated 12.02.2015, whereby the petitioner was
ordered to be released on probation and the writ petition filed by him
challenging the order of dismissal was disposed of by this Court vide
order date 29.11.2017, with a direction to the respondents to reconsider
the matter afresh and in pursuance thereto vide orders dated 17.07.2018
(Annexure R-2) and 17.10.2018 (Annexure P-9), the petitioner was
held entitled for all the service benefits including salary for the period
from 01.06.2014 to 31.05.2015. Furthermore, the retiral dues of the
petitioner were released in 2020/2021 signifying a prolonged and
unjustified delay in releasing the said benefits.
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar Vs. Union
of India and others : 2015(3) SCT 704 has held that the principle of
'no work no pay' would not be attracted where the department is at
fault. In the said judgment, the petitioner therein was denied the
monetary benefits on account of the retrospective promotion as he was
not considered at an appropriate time when he became due for
promotion and the same was withheld. The said judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has been followed by a Division Bench of this
13 of 17
CWP-8046-2022 (O&M) -14-
Court in HVPNL, Panchkula and others Vs. Smt. Sheelawanti :
2019(1) SCT 58, wherein it has been held as under:-
"11. On the contrary, learned single Judge while allowing
the writ petition has placed reliance upon a later judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar
vs. Union of India and others, 2015(3) SCT 704 : AIR
2015 Supreme Court 2904 wherein after considering the
principle of 'no work no pay' and certain other earlier
judgments it has been observed as under:-
"12. In normal circumstances when retrospective
promotions are effected, all benefits flowing
therefrom, including monetary benefits, must be
extended to an employee who has been denied
promotion earlier. So far as monetary benefits with
regard to retrospective promotion is concerned that
depends upon case to case. In State of Kerala &
Ors. v. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai, 2007(2) S.C.T. 757 :
(2007) 6 SCC 524, this Court held that the principle
of "no work no pay" cannot be accepted as a rule of
thumb and the matterwill have to be considered on a
case to case basis and in para (4), it was held as
under:-
"...... We have considered the decisions cited on
behalf of both the sides. So far as the situation with
regard to monetary benefits with retrospective
promotion is concerned, that depends upon case to
case. There are various facets which have to be
considered. Sometimes in a case of departmental
enquiry or in criminal case it depends on the
authorities to grant full back wages or 50 per cent of
back wages looking to the nature of delinquency
involved in the matter or in criminal cases where the
incumbent has been acquitted by giving benefit of
doubt or full acquittal. Sometimes in the matter
when the person is superseded and he has
challenged the same before court or tribunal and he
succeeds in that and direction is given for
reconsideration of his case from the date persons
junior to him were appointed, in that case the court
may grant sometimes full benefits with retrospective
effect and sometimes it may not. Particularly when
the administration has wrongly denied his due then
in that case he should be given full benefits
including monetary benefit subject to there being
any change in law or some other supervening
factors. However, it is very difficult to set down any
hard-and- fast rule. The principle "no work no pay"
cannot be accepted as a rule of thumb. There are
exceptions where courts have granted monetary
14 of 17
CWP-8046-2022 (O&M) -15-
benefits also."
After considering the law on the subject, the ratio of the
said judgment is contained in paragraph 13 of the Reports
which is quoted hereinbelow:
"13. We are conscious that even in the absence of
statutory provision, normal rule is "no work no
pay". In appropriate cases, a court of law may take
into account all the facts in their entirety and pass
an appropriate order in consonance with law. The
principle of "no work no pay" would not be
attracted where the respondents were in fault in not
considering the case of the appellant for promotion
and not allowing the appellant to work on a post of
Naib Subedar carrying higher pay scale. In the facts
of the present case when the appellant was granted
promotion w.e.f. 01.01.2000 with the ante-dated
seniority from 01.08.1997 and maintaining his
seniority alongwith his batchmates, it would be
unjust to deny him higher pay and allowances in the
promotional position of Naib Subedar."
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court has made a categorical
observation, which has been quoted hereinabove, that the
principle of 'no work no pay' would not be attracted
where respondents were at fault in not considering the
case of the appellant for promotion and in not allowing the
appellant to work on the post carrying a higher pay scale.
Applying the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court, we find that learned single Judge, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, has rightly allowed the writ
petition and no fault can be found with the impugned
judgment which may require any interference."
21. To the same effect is the judgment of a Coordinate Bench
of this Court in Dhyan Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others :
2020(2) SCT 518.
22. Further, in Amit Kumar Chakraborty Vs. Haryana Power
Generation Corporation Ltd. and others : 2024 NCPHHC 14268;
CWP No.3046 of 2007 titled Hoshiar Singh and others Vs. State of
Haryana and others, decided on 15.09.2010; Bachan Kaur Vs. Uttar
Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others : 2025 NCPHHC 104333
and Gaganpreet Singh and others Vs. Punjab State Grains
15 of 17
CWP-8046-2022 (O&M) -16-
Procurement Corporation Ltd and others : 2025 NCPHHC 106692, it
has been held that successor in office cannot review the orders passed
by his predecessor.
23. A Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of
Punjab : 1997(3) S.C.T. 468 has held that where there is an inordinate
delay in releasing benefits and the delay is not justifiable, employee
will be entitled for interest. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment
is as under:-
"8. Since a Government employee on his retirement
becomes immediately entitled to pension and other
benefits in terms of the Pension Rules, a duty is
simultaneously cast on the State to ensure the
disbursement of pension and other benefits to the retirer in
proper time. As to what is proper time will depend on the
facts and circumstances of each case but normally it
would not exceed two months from the date of retirement
which time limit has been laid down by the Apex Court in
M. Padmanabhan Nair's case (supra). If the State commits
any default in the performance of its duty thereby denying
to the retiree the benefit of the immediate use of his
money, there is no gainsaying the fact that he gets a right
to be compensated and, in our opinion, the only way to
compensate him is to pay him interest for the period of
delay on the amount as was due to him on the date of his
retirement. xx xx xx xx"
24. Apart from this, in J.S. Cheema Vs. State of Haryana and
others : 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355, this Court had held that an
employee will be entitled for the interest on an amount which has been
retained by the respondents without any valid justification. The relevant
paragraph of the said judgment is as under: -
"5. xx xx xx xx The jurisprudential basis for grant of
interest is the fact that one person's money has been used
by somebody else. It is in that sense rent for the usage of
money. If the user is compounded by any negligence on the
part of the person with whom the money is laying it may
result in higher rate because then it can also include the
16 of 17
CWP-8046-2022 (O&M) -17-
component of damages (in the form of interest). In the
circumstances, even if there is no negligence on the part of
the State it cannot be denied that money which rightly
belonged to the petitioner was in the custody of the State
and was being used by it."
25. Keeping in view the above factual position and settled
principles of law, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order
dated 21.11.2019 (Annexure P-11) is set aside and the petitioner is held
entitled for the grant of pay and allowances for the period from
01.06.2014 to 31.05.2015 along with 7% interest per annum and also
interest at the same rate on the delayed payment of pensionary benefits
with effect from 01.09.2015 (after three months from the date of
retirement) till its actual payment. The said benefits be calculated and
released to the petitioner within a period of 03 months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order.
09.12.2025 (NAMIT KUMAR)
Vinay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
17 of 17
