IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 211 Jaswant Singh State of Haryana CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE Present:- Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Kumar Nain, DAG, Haryana. ***** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ nature of certiorari 25.07.2014 "His pay as Assistant from the deemed date of promotion to the actual date of promotion, any arrear on this account" respondents to grant the arrear of pay from 12.08.2011 to 12.02.2012 when the juniors have been promoted alongwith interest @ 18 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-5771- Date of Decision: Jaswant Singh Versus Haryana and another HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Arvind Seth, Advocate or the petitioner. Harish Kumar Nain, DAG, Haryana. ***** Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ certiorari to quash the following portion of the office order dated 25.07.2014 "His pay as Assistant from the deemed date of promotion to the actual date of promotion, will be fixed notionally and he will not be entitled to any arrear on this account"; and issue a writ of respondents to grant the arrear of pay from 12.08.2011 to 12.02.2012 when the juniors have been promoted alongwith interest @ 18 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -2024 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 27.08.2026 … Petitioner ... Respondents NIDHI GUPTA Harish Kumar Nain, DAG, Haryana. Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ to quash the following portion of the office order dated 25.07.2014 "His pay as Assistant from the deemed date of promotion to the will be fixed notionally and he will not be entitled to writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the arrear of pay from 12.08.2011 to 12.02.2012 when the juniors have been promoted alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ to quash the following portion of the office order dated 25.07.2014 "His pay as Assistant from the deemed date of promotion to the will be fixed notionally and he will not be entitled to directing the respondents to grant the arrear of pay from 12.08.2011 to 12.02.2012 when the NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.02 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5771-2024 (O&M) 1. Brief facts of the case in chronological order are as follows: 05.08.1976: Petitioner Minerals Limited ( 18.4.1977: The petitioner was 22.08.1987: The 22.08.1987. 06.09.1990: The petitioner 25.01.2001: Vide retrenched from service. 21.06.2006: Vide 1 had issued a Scheme regarding re 'C' and Group 'D' etc., who were retrenched during the period 01.03.2000 to 01.0 the vacancy of direct recruitment. 08.02.2007: Pursuant for direct recruitment at the post of Clerk in Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh. 14.2.2007: The petitioner joined in the Haryana Civil Secretariat Clerk. (O&M) - 2 - Brief facts of the case in chronological order are as follows: Petitioner was appointed as a Clerk Minerals Limited (A State Government Undertaking) on 05.08.1976 The petitioner was designated as Steno The petitioner was promoted as Junior Scale Stenographer w.e.f. petitioner was further promoted as Assistant w.e.f. 06.09.1990. : Vide order dated 25.01.2001, petitioner was declared surplus and retrenched from service. Vide Notification dated 21.06.2006 ( 1 had issued a Scheme regarding re-employment of regular retrenched Group 'C' and Group 'D' employees of Boards/Corporations etc., who were retrenched during the period 01.03.2000 to 01.0 the vacancy of direct recruitment. Pursuant to the above, name of the petitioner was recommended recruitment at the post of Clerk in Haryana Civil Secretariat, petitioner joined in the Haryana Civil Secretariat Brief facts of the case in chronological order are as follows: – was appointed as a Clerk-cum-Typist in the Haryana State Government Undertaking) on 05.08.1976. designated as Steno-Typist w.e.f. 18.04.1977. petitioner was promoted as Junior Scale Stenographer w.e.f. promoted as Assistant w.e.f. 06.09.1990. order dated 25.01.2001, petitioner was declared surplus and otification dated 21.06.2006 (Annexure P-1), respondent No. employment of regular retrenched Group employees of Boards/Corporations/Public Sector Undertakings etc., who were retrenched during the period 01.03.2000 to 01.03.2005 against name of the petitioner was recommended recruitment at the post of Clerk in Haryana Civil Secretariat, petitioner joined in the Haryana Civil Secretariat on post of – Typist in the Haryana petitioner was promoted as Junior Scale Stenographer w.e.f. promoted as Assistant w.e.f. 06.09.1990. order dated 25.01.2001, petitioner was declared surplus and ), respondent No. employment of regular retrenched Group Public Sector Undertakings 3.2005 against name of the petitioner was recommended recruitment at the post of Clerk in Haryana Civil Secretariat, post of NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.02 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5771-2024 (O&M) 13.06.2011: Thepetitioner had (Annexure P-2) for 12.08.2011: It is the case of the petitioner that Ashok Kumar Vyas 09.09.2011: Petitioner representation dated 31.03.2014: Petitioner retired from service after attaining age of superannuation i.e. 58 years vide order dated 20.03.2014 ( 25/28.07.2014: Upon fixation of seniority, petitioner was promoted as Assistant w.e.f. 12.08.2011 i.e. the date on which, Sh. Ashok Kumar Vyas was promoted. 22.08.2014: Petitioner filed representation pay from 12.08.2011 12.02.2012. 02.06.2016: Petitioner filed a CWP No. honorarium in lieu of pension and arrears upon retrospective promotion. 19.12.2023: Vide was disposed of as having been not 06/07.03.2024: As petitioner was not granted arrear of pay w.e.f. 12.08.2011 till 12.02.2012, hence the present writ petition. (O&M) - 3 - petitioner had then submitted representation dated 13.06.2011 ) for grant of ACP grade. is the case of the petitioner that Ashok Kumar Vyas was promoted at the post of Assistant Petitioner raised a grievance against promotion of his junior representation dated 09.09.2011 (Annexure P-3). Petitioner retired from service after attaining age of i.e. 58 years vide order dated 20.03.2014 ( Upon fixation of seniority, petitioner was promoted as Assistant 12.08.2011 i.e. the date on which, Sh. Ashok Kumar Vyas was promoted. Petitioner filed representation (Annexure P pay from 12.08.2011 onwards and release the arrear of pay from 12.08.2011 to etitioner filed a CWP No. 13541 of 2016 before this Court seeking honorarium in lieu of pension and arrears upon retrospective promotion. Vide order dated 19.12.2023(Annexure P was disposed of as having been not pressed with As petitioner was not granted arrear of pay w.e.f. 12.08.2011 till 12.02.2012, hence the present writ petition. submitted representation dated 13.06.2011 is the case of the petitioner that junior of petitioner namely, at the post of Assistant. raised a grievance against promotion of his junior vide ). Petitioner retired from service after attaining age of i.e. 58 years vide order dated 20.03.2014 (Annexure P-5). Upon fixation of seniority, petitioner was promoted as Assistant 12.08.2011 i.e. the date on which, Sh. Ashok Kumar Vyas was promoted. Annexure P-6) seeking fixation of onwards and release the arrear of pay from 12.08.2011 to 13541 of 2016 before this Court seeking honorarium in lieu of pension and arrears upon retrospective promotion. (Annexure P-8), the said writ Petition pressed with liberty to file afresh. As petitioner was not granted arrear of pay w.e.f. 12.08.2011 till submitted representation dated 13.06.2011 , vide Petitioner retired from service after attaining age of Upon fixation of seniority, petitioner was promoted as Assistant seeking fixation of onwards and release the arrear of pay from 12.08.2011 to 13541 of 2016 before this Court seeking Petition As petitioner was not granted arrear of pay w.e.f. 12.08.2011 till NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.02 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5771-2024 (O&M) 2. Ld. C as prescribed in the seniority of age has not been followed in letter and spirit 23/23/2005-2GSIII dated 13.10.2006, name of the petitioner was deliberately recommended against the promotional post of Assistant in HUDA name of the petitioner was referred back with the remarks that the scheme is regarding re-employment against the vacancies of direct recruitment, the names of juniors of the petitione of direct recruitment to the post of UDC and Clerk/Meter Reader in the pay scale of Rs. 4625 they joined their duties in 3. Thereafter, the name of the petitioner was again recommended vide Memo. No. 23/23/2005 recruitment to the post of Clerk in Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh in the pay scale of Rs. 3050 on the said post on 14.2.2007, of Rs. 4625-7000 and Rs. 4000 Sh. Ashok Kumar Vyas who joined his in Haryana Civil Secretariat was about 10 years junior from the petitioner in Haryana Minerals Limited and was also junior in age the petitioner in Haryana Civil Secretariat 21.6.2006, it is mentioned that senior in age will be the criteria for fixing the seniority. In the present case, petitioner is higher in age than the other person (O&M) - 4 - Counsel for the petitioner inter alia as prescribed in the Notification dated 21.6.2006 (Annexure P seniority of age has not been followed in letter and spirit 2GSIII dated 13.10.2006, name of the petitioner was deliberately against the promotional post of Assistant in HUDA name of the petitioner was referred back with the remarks that the scheme is employment against the vacancies of direct recruitment, the names of juniors of the petitioner were recommended against the vacancies of direct recruitment to the post of UDC and Clerk/Meter Reader in the pay -7000 and Rs. 4000-6000/- respectively in UHBVN/DHBVN and they joined their duties in October 2006. Thereafter, the name of the petitioner was again recommended vide Memo. No. 23/23/2005-2GSIII dated 8.2.2007 against the vacancy of direct recruitment to the post of Clerk in Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4950/- + Rs. 40/- as special pay and the petitioner joined on the said post on 14.2.2007, whereas the juniors have got higher pay scale i 7000 and Rs. 4000-6000/- respectively. Sh. Ashok Kumar Vyas who joined his duty in October in Haryana Civil Secretariat was about 10 years junior from the petitioner in Haryana Minerals Limited and was also junior in age the petitioner in Haryana Civil Secretariat. Whereas in the noti 21.6.2006, it is mentioned that senior in age will be the criteria for fixing the seniority. In the present case, petitioner is higher in age than the other person inter alia submits that the procedure otification dated 21.6.2006 (Annexure P-1) regarding seniority of age has not been followed in letter and spirit; and vide Memo. No. 2GSIII dated 13.10.2006, name of the petitioner was deliberately against the promotional post of Assistant in HUDA. As such, the name of the petitioner was referred back with the remarks that the scheme is employment against the vacancies of direct recruitment, whereas r were recommended against the vacancies of direct recruitment to the post of UDC and Clerk/Meter Reader in the pay respectively in UHBVN/DHBVN and Thereafter, the name of the petitioner was again recommended 2GSIII dated 8.2.2007 against the vacancy of direct recruitment to the post of Clerk in Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh in the as special pay and the petitioner joined the juniors have got higher pay scale i.e. respectively. Ld. Counsel points out that October 2006 to the post of Clerk in Haryana Civil Secretariat was about 10 years junior from the petitioner in Haryana Minerals Limited and was also junior in age. Yet, he was made senior to hereas in the notification dated 21.6.2006, it is mentioned that senior in age will be the criteria for fixing the seniority. In the present case, petitioner is higher in age than the other person the procedure 1) regarding and vide Memo. No. 2GSIII dated 13.10.2006, name of the petitioner was deliberately the name of the petitioner was referred back with the remarks that the scheme is whereas r were recommended against the vacancies of direct recruitment to the post of UDC and Clerk/Meter Reader in the pay respectively in UHBVN/DHBVN and Thereafter, the name of the petitioner was again recommended 2GSIII dated 8.2.2007 against the vacancy of direct recruitment to the post of Clerk in Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh in the as special pay and the petitioner joined e. that 2006 to the post of Clerk in Haryana Civil Secretariat was about 10 years junior from the petitioner in to fication dated 21.6.2006, it is mentioned that senior in age will be the criteria for fixing the seniority. In the present case, petitioner is higher in age than the other person NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.02 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5771-2024 (O&M) his basic pay was Rs. 8550/ is urged that, therefore, 4. It is further submitted t petitioner (Ashok his representation to the grievance that as Ashok Kumar Vyas was junior to the petitioner therefore, petitioner may also be promoted to the post of Assistant from the date when his junior (Ashok Kumar Vyas) was promoted. 5. In the meantime, petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2014 on attaining the age of superannuation vide office order dated (Annexure P-5). 6. Thereafter, vide order dated fixation of seniority, w.e.f. 12.08.2011, the date when his junior, Ashok Kumar Vyas, Clerk, had been promoted. 7. However, although petitioner had been granted seniority, no arrears or monetary benefits were granted to the petiti of promotion. As such, petitioner had submitted representation dated 22.08.2014 (Annexure P from 12.08.2011 onwards and release arrears of pay from 12.08.2011 to 12.02.2012. (O&M) - 5 - his basic pay was Rs. 8550/- but the basic pay of the petitioner was Rs.8300/ is urged that, therefore, the petitioner has to face financial los It is further submitted that in the year 2011, when the junior of the petitioner (Ashok Kumar) was promoted as Assistant, petitioner had submitted tion to respondent No. 1 on 09.09.2011 the grievance that as Ashok Kumar Vyas was junior to the petitioner therefore, petitioner may also be promoted to the post of Assistant from the date when his junior (Ashok Kumar Vyas) was promoted. In the meantime, petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2014 on attaining the age of superannuation vide office order dated Thereafter, vide order dated 28.07.2014 (Annexure P fixation of seniority, petitioner was deemed to be promoted as Assistant in PB w.e.f. 12.08.2011, the date when his junior, Ashok Kumar Vyas, Clerk, had been However, although petitioner had been granted seniority, no arrears or monetary benefits were granted to the petiti of promotion. As such, petitioner had submitted representation dated 22.08.2014 (Annexure P-6) to respondent No. 1 with the prayer to fix his pay from 12.08.2011 onwards and release arrears of pay from 12.08.2011 to but the basic pay of the petitioner was Rs.8300/-. It the petitioner has to face financial loss as well. hat in the year 2011, when the junior of the Assistant, petitioner had submitted 9.2011 (Annexure P-3) and raised the grievance that as Ashok Kumar Vyas was junior to the petitioner therefore, petitioner may also be promoted to the post of Assistant from the date when In the meantime, petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2014 on attaining the age of superannuation vide office order dated 20.03.2014 .07.2014 (Annexure P-7), upon was deemed to be promoted as Assistant in PB-2 w.e.f. 12.08.2011, the date when his junior, Ashok Kumar Vyas, Clerk, had been However, although petitioner had been granted seniority, no arrears or monetary benefits were granted to the petitioner from deemed date of promotion. As such, petitioner had submitted representation dated 6) to respondent No. 1 with the prayer to fix his pay from 12.08.2011 onwards and release arrears of pay from 12.08.2011 to It hat in the year 2011, when the junior of the Assistant, petitioner had submitted and raised the grievance that as Ashok Kumar Vyas was junior to the petitioner therefore, petitioner may also be promoted to the post of Assistant from the date when In the meantime, petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2014 on .03.2014 upon 2 w.e.f. 12.08.2011, the date when his junior, Ashok Kumar Vyas, Clerk, had been However, although petitioner had been granted seniority, no oner from deemed date of promotion. As such, petitioner had submitted representation dated 6) to respondent No. 1 with the prayer to fix his pay from 12.08.2011 onwards and release arrears of pay from 12.08.2011 to NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.02 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5771-2024 (O&M) 8. As no action was taken upon the representation (Annexure P petitioner had approached this Court by way of CWP No. 13 alia seeking the following prayers: (O&M) - 6 - no action was taken upon the representation (Annexure P petitioner had approached this Court by way of CWP No. 13 the following prayers:- “(i) A writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the letter dated 28.9.2015 (Annexure P-10) issued by the Respondent No. I vide which payment of Earned Leave to the petitioner has been denied. (ii) A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to count the past service of the petitioner rendered by him in Haryana Mineral Limited. (iii) A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the arrear of pay from 12.8.2011 i.e. from the date when the junior of the petitioner has been promoted, which is clear from the order dated 28.7.2014 (Annexure P (iv) A writ of mandamus direc Balance Leave Encashment, Gratuity and medical allowance @ Rs. 500/- per month which has not been given to the petitioner from the date of his retirement with interest @ 18% per annum. (v) A writ of mandamus directing responde pension per month to the petitioner for which he is entitled. vi) A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant First ACP Grade to the petitioner in respect of past service benefit in the parent department. no action was taken upon the representation (Annexure P-6), petitioner had approached this Court by way of CWP No. 13541 of 2016, inter A writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the letter dated 10) issued by the Respondent No. I vide which payment of Earned Leave to the petitioner has ii) A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to count the past service of the petitioner rendered by him in Haryana A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the arrear of pay from 12.8.2011 i.e. from the date when the junior of the petitioner has been promoted, which is clear from the order dated 28.7.2014 (Annexure P-6). iv) A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant Balance Leave Encashment, Gratuity and medical allowance per month which has not been given to the petitioner from the date of his retirement with interest @ A writ of mandamus directing respondents to grant the pension per month to the petitioner for which he is entitled. vi) A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant First ACP Grade to the petitioner in respect of past service benefit in the parent department.” 6), inter A writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the letter dated 10) issued by the Respondent No. I vide which payment of Earned Leave to the petitioner has ii) A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to count the past service of the petitioner rendered by him in Haryana A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the arrear of pay from 12.8.2011 i.e. from the date when the junior of the petitioner has been promoted, which is clear ting the respondents to grant Balance Leave Encashment, Gratuity and medical allowance per month which has not been given to the petitioner from the date of his retirement with interest @ nts to grant the vi) A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant First ACP Grade to the petitioner in respect of past service NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.02 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5771-2024 (O&M) 9. It is pointed out that the by this Court vide order dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure P respect of the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of arrears of pay, this Court had specifically 10. It is submitted that accordingly, petitioner is entitled for grant of arrears w.e.f. 12.08.2011 to 12.02.2012 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (SC): Law Finder Doc Id # (O&M) - 7 - is pointed out that the said writ petition came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure P respect of the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of arrears of pay, this specifically observed as follows:- “4. The second grievance raised by the petitioner is that he has not been given the actual arrears upon the retrospective promotion as ordered vide Annexure P He further submits that there is no challenge to order Annexure P-6 and the said order had already been implemented in its letter and spirit and as per the order Annexure P-6 dated 25.07.2014, the arrears were not to be given and the promotion was to be given notionally without any arrears. Hence, in the absen said order, no benefit of arrears can be granted. 5. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present prayer may kindly be disposed of as having been not pressed at this stage with liberty to agitate the same afresh by filing fresh petition challenging Annexure P-6. 6. Ordered accordingly.” It is submitted that accordingly, petitioner is entitled for grant of arrears w.e.f. 12.08.2011 to 12.02.2012. In support, ld. Counsel relies upon udgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar v. Union of India (SC): Law Finder Doc Id # 697228 2015 (3) SCT 704 said writ petition came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure P-8). It is submitted that in respect of the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of arrears of pay, this The second grievance raised by the petitioner is that he has not been given the actual arrears upon the retrospective promotion as ordered vide Annexure P-6 dated 25.07.2014. He further submits that there is no challenge to order 6 and the said order had already been implemented in its letter and spirit and as per the order 6 dated 25.07.2014, the arrears were not to be given and the promotion was to be given notionally without any arrears. Hence, in the absence of any challenge to the said order, no benefit of arrears can be granted. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present prayer may kindly be disposed of as having been not pressed at this stage with to agitate the same afresh by filing fresh petition It is submitted that accordingly, petitioner is entitled for grant of . In support, ld. Counsel relies upon Ramesh Kumar v. Union of India 697228 2015 (3) SCT 704. said writ petition came to be disposed of 8). It is submitted that in respect of the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of arrears of pay, this The second grievance raised by the petitioner is that he has not been given the actual arrears upon the retrospective 6 dated 25.07.2014. He further submits that there is no challenge to order 6 and the said order had already been implemented in its letter and spirit and as per the order 6 dated 25.07.2014, the arrears were not to be given and the promotion was to be given notionally without ce of any challenge to the Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present prayer may kindly be disposed of as having been not pressed at this stage with to agitate the same afresh by filing fresh petition It is submitted that accordingly, petitioner is entitled for grant of . In support, ld. Counsel relies upon Ramesh Kumar v. Union of India NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.02 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5771-2024 (O&M) 11. Accordingly, prays that the present writ petition be allowed prays to quash the following portion of the office order dated 25.07.2014 (Annexure P-7) "His pay as Assistant from the deemed date of promotion to the actual date of promotion, will be fixed notionally and he will not be entitled any arrear on this account" and directions be issued to the arrears of pay from 12.08.2011 to 12.02.2012 when the junior promoted alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. 12. Per contra petitioner and contended that the petitioner had retired in the year 2014; whereas the present writ petition has been filed only in the year 2024. It is contended that therefore, the present writ petition is ba laches. 13. Ld. State counsel further submits that petitioner has not worked on the post of Assistant. As such, on the principle of not entitled to any arrears on this account. 14. No other argument is parties. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file and record in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf counsel. 15. The entitlement of the petitioner for promotion from date his junior was promoted, is not disputed by the learned (O&M) - 8 - Accordingly, prays that the present writ petition be allowed quash the following portion of the office order dated 25.07.2014 "His pay as Assistant from the deemed date of promotion to the actual date of promotion, will be fixed notionally and he will not be entitled any arrear on this account" and directions be issued to of pay from 12.08.2011 to 12.02.2012 when the junior promoted alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. Per contra, ld. State counsel has opposed submissions of the petitioner and contended that the petitioner had retired in the year 2014; whereas the present writ petition has been filed only in the year 2024. It is contended that therefore, the present writ petition is ba State counsel further submits that petitioner has not worked on the post of Assistant. As such, on the principle of not entitled to any arrears on this account. No other argument is made on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file and record in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf The entitlement of the petitioner for promotion from date his junior was promoted, is not disputed by the learned Accordingly, prays that the present writ petition be allowed and quash the following portion of the office order dated 25.07.2014 "His pay as Assistant from the deemed date of promotion to the actual date of promotion, will be fixed notionally and he will not be entitled to any arrear on this account" and directions be issued to the respondents to grant of pay from 12.08.2011 to 12.02.2012 when the junior has been State counsel has opposed submissions of the petitioner and contended that the petitioner had retired in the year 2014; whereas the present writ petition has been filed only in the year 2024. It is contended that therefore, the present writ petition is barred by delay and State counsel further submits that petitioner has not worked on the post of Assistant. As such, on the principle of 'No Work No Pay', petitioner is made on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file and record in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned State The entitlement of the petitioner for promotion from date his junior was promoted, is not disputed by the learned State Counsel. The only and quash the following portion of the office order dated 25.07.2014 "His pay as Assistant from the deemed date of promotion to the to the respondents to grant been State counsel has opposed submissions of the petitioner and contended that the petitioner had retired in the year 2014; whereas the present writ petition has been filed only in the year 2024. It is by delay and State counsel further submits that petitioner has not worked on , petitioner is made on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file and record in detail. I of the learned State The entitlement of the petitioner for promotion from date his . The only NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.02 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5771-2024 (O&M) ground on which claim of the petitioner is opposed is delay. However, admittedly, upon dated 28.07.2014 representation dated 22.08.2014 (Annexure P 12.08.2011. As no action was taken upon the sad representation, then approached this Court arrears of pay. As noted above, the said prayer of the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure P pressed at this stage petition challenging... petition. Hence, it cannot be said that claim of the petitioner is barred by and laches. 16. As regards contention of the learned State counsel that petitioner is not entitled to arrears of pay in view of principle of no merit in the said argument as well. above that the petitioner promoted. Denial of promotion to the petitioner is also in violation of the Instructions/P-1. mistake vide order dated 28.07.2014 (Annexure promotion with effect from 12.08.2011. This clearly shows that there was no fault of the petitioner and thus and has caused undue hardship (O&M) - 9 - ground on which claim of the petitioner is opposed is delay. However, upon his retrospective promotion as .07.2014, petitioner had firstly approached the Department vide representation dated 22.08.2014 (Annexure P-6) seeking fixation of pay from As no action was taken upon the sad representation, approached this Court by way of CWP No. 13541 of 2016 As noted above, the said prayer of the petitioner vide order dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure P pressed at this stage with liberty to agitate the same afresh by filing fresh petition challenging....". Soon thereafter, petitioner has filed the instant writ it cannot be said that claim of the petitioner is barred by As regards contention of the learned State counsel that petitioner is not entitled to arrears of pay in view of principle of no merit in the said argument as well. It is established from the facts noted petitioner was illegally denied promotion promoted. Denial of promotion to the petitioner is also in violation of the . Accordingly, the respondents had subsequently mistake vide order dated 28.07.2014 (Annexure promotion with effect from 12.08.2011. This clearly shows that there was no fault of the petitioner and thus, denying arrears of pay for that period is illegal and has caused undue hardship and loss to the petitioner. ground on which claim of the petitioner is opposed is delay. However, retrospective promotion as ordered vide Annexure P-7 petitioner had firstly approached the Department vide 6) seeking fixation of pay from As no action was taken upon the sad representation, petitioner had by way of CWP No. 13541 of 2016 and had sought As noted above, the said prayer of the petitioner was disposed of vide order dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure P-8), as having been "not with liberty to agitate the same afresh by filing fresh thereafter, petitioner has filed the instant writ it cannot be said that claim of the petitioner is barred by delay As regards contention of the learned State counsel that petitioner is not entitled to arrears of pay in view of principle of 'No Work No Pay', there is It is established from the facts noted was illegally denied promotion while his juniors were promoted. Denial of promotion to the petitioner is also in violation of the had subsequently corrected their mistake vide order dated 28.07.2014 (Annexure P-7) granting deemed date of promotion with effect from 12.08.2011. This clearly shows that there was no denying arrears of pay for that period is illegal to the petitioner. Ld. State counsel has ground on which claim of the petitioner is opposed is delay. However, 7 petitioner had firstly approached the Department vide 6) seeking fixation of pay from had had sought was disposed of "not with liberty to agitate the same afresh by filing fresh thereafter, petitioner has filed the instant writ delay As regards contention of the learned State counsel that petitioner there is It is established from the facts noted while his juniors were promoted. Denial of promotion to the petitioner is also in violation of the corrected their deemed date of promotion with effect from 12.08.2011. This clearly shows that there was no denying arrears of pay for that period is illegal counsel has NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.02 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5771-2024 (O&M) been unable to distinguish the judgmentin the petitioner, wherein it has been held that: 17. Similar view has been taken by this Court in State of Haryana wherein it has been held (O&M) - 10 - been unable to distinguish the judgmentin Ramesh Kumar the petitioner, wherein it has been held that: “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 NaibSubedar carrying higher pay scale. In the facts of the pre 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 NaibSubedar. 14. The impugned orders passed by the High Court are set aside and this appeal is allowed. The respondents shall release the arrears of pay and allowances to the appellant for the period from 01.08.1997 till the date of his actual promotion that is 13.11.2000 in the promotional post of Naib Subedar within eight weeks from today. No order as to costs." Similar view has been taken by this Court in State of Haryana (P & H) Law Finder Doc 1D has been held as under:- Ramesh Kumar supra relied upon by . 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 ple 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 NaibSubedar . In the facts of the present case when the appellant was granted promotion w.e.f. 01.01.2000 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 of NaibSubedar.” 14. The impugned orders passed by the High Court are set aside and this appeal is allowed. The respondents shall release the arrears of pay and allowances to the appellant for the period from 01.08.1997 till the date of his actual n that is 13.11.2000 in the promotional post of Naib Subedar within eight weeks from today. No order as to (Emphasis added) Similar view has been taken by this Court in Harvinder Kaur vs (P & H) Law Finder Doc 1D# 2860285 2026 (1) SLJ 207 relied upon by . 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 ple 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 NaibSubedar sent case when the appellant was granted promotion w.e.f. 01.01.2000 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 14. The impugned orders passed by the High Court are set aside and this appeal is allowed. The respondents shall release the arrears of pay and allowances to the appellant for the period from 01.08.1997 till the date of his actual n that is 13.11.2000 in the promotional post of Naib Subedar within eight weeks from today. No order as to Harvinder Kaur vs 2026 (1) SLJ 207 NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.02 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5771-2024 (O&M) (O&M) - 11 - "24. Thus, the denial of benefit to the petitioners lies ill in the mouth of the respondent-department, for it is an all too familiar argument with the exploiting class and a welfare State committed to a socialistic pattern of society cannot be permitted to advance such argument. 25. The court is of the opinion that since the petitioners were deprived of promotion due to an illegal act of the respondent department and was later promoted retrospectively correction of the illegality, denial of actual monetary benefits would amount to perpetuating the original wrong. Equity, fairness, and settled service jurisprudence demand that the petitioner be placed, as far as possible, in the same position in which he would have been but for the illegal action of the department. 26. It is a sad paradox that a civil servant, who should be a partner in the State's mission of service, was forced into a multiple rounds of litigation not by choice, but by a department's unbending sternness. Having survived the first ordeal to secure his rightful promotion, he was met with a second, colder wall by denial of monetary benefits through a mechanical application of the 'No Work, No Pay' doctrine When the State, a model emplo the employee is eager to perform, it cannot later plead the employee's 'absence' as a shield against paying his due wages. To do so is to allow the employer to 'take advantage of its own wrong' and to make an employee walk throu fire of two rounds of litigation just to reach his rightful position is a travesty that our constitutional conscience cannot condone. "24. Thus, the denial of benefit to the petitioners lies ill in the department, for it is an all too familiar argument with the exploiting class and a welfare a socialistic pattern of society cannot be permitted to advance such argument. 25. The court is of the opinion that since the petitioners were deprived of promotion due to an illegal act of the respondent department and was later promoted retrospectively after correction of the illegality, denial of actual monetary benefits would amount to perpetuating the original wrong. Equity, fairness, and settled service jurisprudence demand that the petitioner be placed, as far as possible, in the same position ich he would have been but for the illegal action of the 26. It is a sad paradox that a civil servant, who should be a partner in the State's mission of service, was forced into a multiple rounds of litigation not by choice, but by a 's unbending sternness. Having survived the first ordeal to secure his rightful promotion, he was met with a second, colder wall by denial of monetary benefits through a mechanical application of the 'No Work, No Pay' doctrine When the State, a model employer obstructs the very work the employee is eager to perform, it cannot later plead the employee's 'absence' as a shield against paying his due wages. To do so is to allow the employer to 'take advantage of its own wrong' and to make an employee walk through the fire of two rounds of litigation just to reach his rightful position is a travesty that our constitutional conscience "24. Thus, the denial of benefit to the petitioners lies ill in the department, for it is an all too familiar argument with the exploiting class and a welfare a socialistic pattern of society cannot be 25. The court is of the opinion that since the petitioners were deprived of promotion due to an illegal act of the respondent after correction of the illegality, denial of actual monetary benefits would amount to perpetuating the original wrong. Equity, fairness, and settled service jurisprudence demand that the petitioner be placed, as far as possible, in the same position ich he would have been but for the illegal action of the 26. It is a sad paradox that a civil servant, who should be a partner in the State's mission of service, was forced into a multiple rounds of litigation not by choice, but by a 's unbending sternness. Having survived the first ordeal to secure his rightful promotion, he was met with a second, colder wall by denial of monetary benefits through a mechanical application of the 'No Work, No Pay' doctrine yer obstructs the very work the employee is eager to perform, it cannot later plead the employee's 'absence' as a shield against paying his due wages. To do so is to allow the employer to 'take advantage gh the fire of two rounds of litigation just to reach his rightful position is a travesty that our constitutional conscience NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.02 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5771-2024 (O&M) 18. Ld. State counsel is unable to legal and factual position. Accordingly, the present the respondents are directed to grant arrears of pay to the petitioner from 12.08.2011 to 12.02.2012 when junior of the petitioner also the date from where petitioner was granted retrospective promotion with interest @ 6% per annum 19. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 27.08.2026 Neelam Whether speaking /reasoned Whether Reportable (O&M) - 12 - Conclusion 27. In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that the petitioners were wrongly denied promotion of the respondent-department, and thus, the principle of "no work no pay" is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The petitioners are entitled to actual monetary benefits from the date their juniors were promoted, ie. 20.01.20 The impugned order dated 28.10.2024 (Annexure P illegal, arbitrary, and is hereby set aside. 28. The respondents are directed to release arrears of salary and all consequential benefits to the petitioners on the post of Assistant from 20.01.2017 interest @ 6% per annum on the arrears from 20.01.2017. This entire exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order." Ld. State counsel is unable to dispute or controvert the above said legal and factual position. Accordingly, the present the respondents are directed to grant arrears of pay to the petitioner from 12.08.2011 to 12.02.2012 when junior of the petitioner also the date from where petitioner was granted retrospective promotion with interest @ 6% per annum. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No 27. In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that the petitioners were wrongly denied promotion due to the fault department, and thus, the principle of "no work no pay" is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The petitioners are entitled to actual monetary benefits from the date their juniors were promoted, ie. 20.01.2017. The impugned order dated 28.10.2024 (Annexure P-7) is illegal, arbitrary, and is hereby set aside. 28. The respondents are directed to release arrears of salary and all consequential benefits to the petitioners on the post of Assistant from 20.01.2017 to 26.05.2023 along with an interest @ 6% per annum on the arrears from 20.01.2017. This entire exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this dispute or controvert the above said legal and factual position. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant arrears of pay to the petitioner from 12.08.2011 to 12.02.2012 when junior of the petitioner has been promoted; and also the date from where petitioner was granted retrospective promotion, along Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No 27. In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that the due to the fault department, and thus, the principle of "no work no pay" is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The petitioners are entitled to actual monetary benefits 17. 7) is 28. The respondents are directed to release arrears of salary and all consequential benefits to the petitioners on the post to 26.05.2023 along with an interest @ 6% per annum on the arrears from 20.01.2017. This entire exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this dispute or controvert the above said and the respondents are directed to grant arrears of pay to the petitioner from and along NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.02 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document