CWP-26665-2022 (O&M) -1- 219 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-26665-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.07.2026 Sheela … Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: Mr. B.S. Rathee, Advocate and Mr. V. D. Rathee, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Akshit Pathania, Asst. A. G., Haryana. ***** NIDHI GUPTA , J. Present Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a Writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing/modifying the impugned order dated 29.09.2020/01.10.2020 (Annexure P-14) passed by respondent no. 2, wherein although the husband of the petitioner was granted the promotion with effect from 18.10.1996 to the post of Assistant along with benefit of 1st and 2nd A.C.P. w.e.f. 01.11.2006 and 01.11.2014 notionally, but no arrears have been paid. Since juniors to the petitioner’s husband who approached this Court have been granted the promotion to the post of Assistant along SEEMA 2026.07.08 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26665-2022 (O&M) -2- with all the arrears of salary, the action of respondent authorities in denying the same to the deceased husband of the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary that despite there was no condition of Type Test in the Service Rules, the condition has been imposed illegally and arbitrarily, the benefit of promotion has been denied, impugned order deserve to be set aside/modified to the extent of grant of arrears of pay with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 18.10.1996 onwards till actual payment is made; secondly, for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus direction the respondents to pay the interest @ 12% on delayed payment of retiral benefits to the petitioner, since the date of superannuation of the petitioner’s late husband was 31.05.2020 and the Family Pension PPO was issued on 20.06.2022 (Annexure P-17) i.e. after a delay of 02 years, she is entitled interest as per policy instructions dated 20.02.2002 and 05.05.2002 (Annexures P-18 and P-19) from the day it becomes due till the payment is made. 2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on 08.07.1991, name of husband of the petitioner namely late Sh. Rajbir Singh was recommended by the Subordinate Service Selection Board, Haryana (now Haryana Service Selection Commission, hereinafter referred to as ‘HSSC’ for short), for appointment as Clerk. Pursuant thereto, husband of the petitioner joined service on 18.10.1991. While still in service, husband of the petitioner expired on 13.05.2017 as evident from the death certificate (Annexure P-1). The date of superannuation of husband of the petitioner was 31.05.2020. On 29.02.2000, the respondent-Department had released seniority list of Clerks (Annexure P-2) where husband of the petitioner had SEEMA 2026.07.08 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26665-2022 (O&M) -3- been assigned seniority at Sr. No. 87. One person namely Dharam Dev who was junior to husband of the petitioner, had been assigned seniority at Sr. No. 88. Dharam Dev had filed Civil Writ Petition No. 10198 of 2014 with the grievance that despite his juniors having been granted promotion to post of Assistant without insisting upon passing of typing test, vide order dated 13.3.2013, the same benefit has not been granted to him/Dharam Dev. The said CWP-10198-2014 was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23.05.2014 (Annexure P-9) with a direction to respondent no. 2 to consider and decide the legal notice submitted by Dharam Dev within a period of three months. Pursuant thereto vide order dated 01.10.2014 (Annexure P-10), respondent no. 2 allowed deemed date of promotion to said Dharam Dev w.e.f. 18.10.1996 to 15.11.2007, notionally. 3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 11.09.2015 (Annexure P-11), similar benefit was extended by the respondent no. 2 to one other person namely Dalip Singh, who was also junior to husband of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner had served a legal notice dated 20.08.2018 (Annexure P-12) upon the respondents claiming that her husband has to be granted promotion as Assistant w.e.f. from 18.10.1996. The petitioner had earlier filed CWP-29982-2018, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 28.11.2018 (Annexure P-13), with a direction to the respondents to decide the legal notice dated 20.08.2018 (Annexure P-12) submitted by the petitioner by passing a speaking order within a period of three months. As the said direction was not complied with, the petitioner had then filed a COCP-2165 of 2020; which was SEEMA 2026.07.08 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26665-2022 (O&M) -4- dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.10.2020 as, in the meantime, the impugned order dated 29.09.2020 (Annexure P-14) was passed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from all the above said facts it is clear that juniors of the husband of the petitioner have been granted promotion to post of Assistant without insisting upon passing of typing test. As such, husband of the petitioner was also entitled to the said benefit; which would also directly affect the retiral benefits payable to the petitioner being his widow. However, despite having made representation, the respondents have not processed the case of the petitioner for grant of family pension. The retiral benefits have been released to the petitioner only after two years, after release of Pension Payment Order (PPO). The petitioner had even sent legal notice for payment of interest on delayed payment. However, to no avail. It is reiterated that as persons junior to the petitioner have been promoted w.e.f. 18.10.1996, petitioner was entitled to arrears for the said period. It is submitted that in similar case of Tilak Raj v. State of Haryana and others in CWP-18333-2002, vide order dated 16.08.2005 (Annexure P-3), arrears had been granted to the petitioner therein. It is accordingly prayed that in these circumstances, the impugned orders dated 29.09.2020/ 01.10.2020 passed by respondent no. 2 be modified and arrears of salary be paid to the petitioner. 5. Per contra, counsel for the respondent-State vehemently opposes the submissions of the petitioner and submits that vide the impugned order dated 29.09.2020 (Annexure P-14), the deceased husband of the petitioner has been granted promotion with effect from 18.10.1996 to the SEEMA 2026.07.08 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26665-2022 (O&M) -5- post of Assistant along with the benefits of 1st and 2nd ACP, i.e. with effect from 01.11.2006 and 01.11.2014, respectively, notionally. It is submitted that no arrears are payable, as even to juniors of the petitioner's husband, namely Dharam Dev etc., no arrears of salary have been paid. Similarly, no arrears of salary have been paid to Tilak Raj. 6. It is further submitted that arrears of salary were not paid also on the ground that, unlike the other said persons namely Dharam Dev and Tilak Raj, husband of the petitioner could not be granted promotion at the relevant time due to the pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him, by way of charge-sheet dated 02.05.2011 issued under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987. It is pointed out that subsequently, vide order dated 03.05.2019 the said charges have been dropped after death of the petitioner's husband. Accordingly, it is submitted that the present Civil Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. No other argument was raised on behalf of the parties. 8. I have heard learned counsel and perused the paperbook. 9. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to dispute that, vide order dated 01.10.2014 (Annexure P-10), respondent No. 2 had allowed deemed date of promotion to Dharam Dev/junior to the husband of the petitioner, with effect from 18.10.1996 to 15.11.2007, notionally. 9. The respondent department had notified its departmental service rules related to Group 'C' employees, namely the Haryana Social Defense and Security Department (Group 'C') Service Rules, 1998 (herein after SEEMA 2026.07.08 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26665-2022 (O&M) -6- referred as the ‘Department Service Rules, 1998’). As per the said Rules, passing of typing test at the prescribed speed was mandatory condition for promotion to the post of Assistant from that of Clerk. In light of the said Rules, the respondent department was not promoting the employees including the petitioner's husband, who were appointed as Clerk before institution of the said rules, on the ground of not passing the typing test. Aggrieved of the same, one Sh. Tilak Raj, reflected at serial No. 104 in the seniority list dated 29.03.2000, claimed the promotion to the post of Assistant w.e.f. the date of promotion of his junior Sh. Dharambir (reflected at serial No. 173). But his claim was rejected by the respondent department, in view of the Departmental Service Rules, 1998, on the ground of not passing of type test. Thereafter, said Tilak Raj had filed aforementioned CWP-18333-2002 before this Court for seeking promotion to the post of Assistant w.e.f. the date of promotion of his junior Sh. Dharambir; and vide orders dated 16.08.2005 (Annexures P-3), this Court allowed his claim, thereby quashing the respondent stand in respect of applicability of the Haryana Social Defense and Security Department (Group ‘C’) Service Rules, 1998. The respondent department had challenged the said orders before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of filing an SLP but the same was dismissed vide orders dated 23.07.2008 and hence, the orders dated 16.08.2005 passed by this Court attained finality. 10. Thus, finally, the issue in respect of applicability of condition of passing type test, as mandated in the Haryana Social Defense and Security Department (Group ‘C’) Service Rules, 1998, on such employees, who had SEEMA 2026.07.08 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26665-2022 (O&M) -7- joined the services before institution of the said rules, was settled up to the level of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the year 2008. 11. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has placed great reliance upon the aforesaid orders dated 16.8.2005/P-3; and order dated 23.07.2008/P-4 to claim parity with the said Tilak Raj submitting that vide said orders Tilak Raj had not only been granted promotion to post of Assistant in terms of the 1975 Rules, without insisting on passing of type test; whereafter, Tilak Raj was also granted all consequential benefits. Accordingly, petitioner is an also entitled to the same. However, the said contention of the petitioner is based on a complete misreading of the order dated 16.8.2005/P-3, the relevant extract of which reads as under: – “Admittedly, respondent No.4 was promoted in 1995 i.e. at the time when Rule of 1975 were in position. To our mind, it is, therefore, clear that the case of the petitioner would have to be dealt with under the Rules of 1975 and the stand of the respondents that he was covered by the 1998 Rules is clearly untenable. We, therefore, quash the impugned order Annexure P-8 and direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion in this background from the date when respondent No.4 had been promoted. The entire exercise will be completed within four months from today. Should the petitioner succeed in getting promotion, the respondents shall consider his claim towards the grant of consequential relief as well.” A bare reading of the above shows that vide order dated 16.8.2005, the respondents have only been directed to reconsider the case of Tilak Raj for promotion from the date when person junior to him was promoted. And in case Tilak Raj is granted promotion, the respondents have only been directed to “consider his claim towards grant of consequential relief as well”. Therefore, by no stretch of the imagination, can it be said that SEEMA 2026.07.08 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26665-2022 (O&M) -8- by way of the above said orders dated 16.08.2005 and 23.07.2008, consequential benefits have also been granted to Tilak Raj. This contention of the petitioner is baseless. 12. Thereafter, in compliance of the orders dated 16.08.2005 passed by this Court, Sh. Tilak Raj was granted ante dated promotion to the post of Assistant from the post of Clerk vide order dated 02.12.2008 with the notional benefit w.e.f. 13.09.1995 and the actual benefit w.e.f. 02.12.2008. Thus, Sh. Tilak Raj was only granted notional benefit of ante dated promotion and not the actual benefit by the respondent-Department. 13. Consequent to the case of Tilak Raj similar situated employees also claimed the ante dated promotion, through numerous writ petitions filed in the year 2010. This Court allowed the said writ petitions, and all such employees have been promoted. 14. However, the petitioner’s husband Sh. Rajbir could still not be promoted to the post of Assistant due to pendency of charge sheet bearing Memo No. 9109 dated 02.05.2011 under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987; and charge sheet bearing Memo No. 5493 dated 16.03.2015 under Rule 8 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 till his death. Vide order dated 03.05.2019, said charges have been dropped, by the respondent department after death of Shri Rajbir on 13.05.2017. 15. As noted above, it is only at this stage that the petitioner had approached this Court by way of CWP No. 29982 of 2018 claiming promotion of her husband to the post of Assistant w.e.f. 18.10.1996. The said SEEMA 2026.07.08 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26665-2022 (O&M) -9- writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide orders dated 28.11.2018 with directions to decide the legal notice dated 20.08.2018. In compliance of the said orders, the respondent department, considered the said legal notice and passed the impugned order dated 29.09.2020 (P-14) vide which ante dated promotion to the post of Assistant along with notional benefit w.e.f. ˢᵗ 18.10.1996 as well as the notional benefit of 1 ACP w.e.f. 01.11.2006 and ᵈ 2ⁿ ACP w.e.f. 01.11.2014 has been granted to the petitioner’s husband on pattern of Tilak Raj case. Thus, petitioner has been unable to make out any infirmity in the impugned order. 16. As regards question of promotion of junior Sh. Dharam Dev (Sr. No. 88) w.e.f. 18.10.1996 is concerned, as per the record, he joined as Clerk in the department on 18.10.1991 in pursuance of appointment letter dated 15.10.1991. He was promoted to the post of Assistant from that of Clerk after passing the typing test vide order dated 15.11.2007 w.e.f. 16.11.2007 but he approached this Court by way of filing the CWP No. 10198 of 2014 for claiming the promotion to the post of Assistant w.e.f. 18.10.1996 on the pattern of Tilak Raj's case (supra). The said writ petition has been disposed of by this Court with direction to take decision on the legal notice served upon by Sh. Dharam Dev. Therefore, in compliance of the said orders, Sh. Dharam Dev was notionally promoted w.e.f. 18.10.1996 and the notional benefit of ante dated promotion from 18.10.1996 to 15.11.2007 had also been granted vide order dated 24.09.2014 passed by the respondent department. It is manifested from the said order that no arrear of salary for the period of 18.10.1996 to 15.11.2007 would be paid to Dharam Dev. SEEMA 2026.07.08 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26665-2022 (O&M) -10- From the above discussion, it is clear that claim of the petitioner for arrears of salary is patently misplaced. Further, the respondents no.1 and 2 in their written statement dated 22.04.2024 have categorically stated in paras 9, 10 and 11 of the Preliminary Submissions as follows: – “9. That it is clarified that the petitioner's husband Sh. Rajbir, his junior Sh. Dharam Dev and other similar situated employees were ante dated promoted to the post of Assistant on pattern of Sh. Tilak Raj. The arrear of salary of the period of ante dated promotion had neither been given to Sh. Tilak Raj nor been given to junior of the petitioner's husband and other similar situated employees. 10. That further, the petitioner is also not entitled for arrear of salary for the period of ante dated promotion on the sole ground of "No Work No Pay", in light of the instructions dated 27.11.2006 issued by the Finance Department, Haryana, which is reproduced as under: "The aforesaid matter has been examined and it is observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others Vs. O.P. Gupta1996 (2) RSJ 194 have held that in in case of notional promotion allowed from the deemed date, the concerned Officials are not entitled for payment of arrears of salary as they had not worked during the period. Accordingly, payment should be made from the actual date of promotion. On the light of judgment the Government have thus decided that no arrears of salaries is payable to the employee for the period between the deemed date of promotion and the actual date of promotion". Therefore, in view of above, the petitioner's husband Sh. Rajbir is not entitled for the benefit of the arrear of salary for the period of 18.10.1996 to 13.05.2017. 11. That in so far as question of interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits is concerned, it is submitted that the petitioner's husband expired on 13.05.2017 and therefore, the petitioner was granted the financial assistance under the Ex- gratia Policy w.e.f. 14.05.2017 to 31.05.2020 i.e. date of superannuation of her husband SEEMA 2026.07.08 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26665-2022 (O&M) -11- vide order dated 09.11.2017. Thereafter, since 01.06.2020 family pension was to be sanctioned to her and for this purpose, she was required to submit the pension papers along with relevant documents in the answering respondent department so that same could be forwarded to the office of Accountant General, Haryana and the PPO/GPO could be issued to her for the purpose of family pension. Therefore, she was requested to submit the pension papers vide letter dated 07.08.2020 by the answering respondent department and even, directions were also issued to the DSWO concerned to guide her and to furnish the pension papers after getting prepared the same. On the one hand, the arrangement of pension papers of the petitioner is under process and on the other hand, the matter of revision of pay of the petitioner's husband, in furtherance of grant of ante dated promotion vide order dated 29.09.2020, was also under process. The pay revision of the petitioner's husband has been finalized vide order dated 07.12.2020 and the pension papers of the petitioner furnished by the DSWO concerned vide letter dated 23.12.2020, finally, received on 01.01.2021 in the department. The suspension period of the petitioner's husband was also to be decided and therefore, the answering respondent department took decision thereon and the same has been treated as duty period vide order dated 22.07.2021. Subsequently, vide letter dated 06.10.2021, the pension papers have been forwarded to the office of Principal Accountant General for further action but the same have been returned back by them with request to submit the pension papers online through ODMS and not in physical form. Pursuant thereto, the pension case has been submitted online through ODMS on 19.05.2022 and it took some time being new system for the department. Ultimately, the office of Principal Accountant General issued the PPO/GPO No. to the petitioner on 20.06.2022. Hence, the answering respondent department is not attributable for occurrence of delay in sanctioning of family pension to the petitioner inasmuch as the case of family pension of the petitioner has been forwarded to the Accountant General, Haryana SEEMA 2026.07.08 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26665-2022 (O&M) -12- after disposal of all the issues arose during the service of the petitioner's husband due to being suspended and charge-sheeted till death, which occupied some time. Thus, in view of all the circumstantial facts as well as submissions made above, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed in the interest of justice.” 17. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has been unable to refute the above noted submissions and factual position. No arrears of salary are payable to the petitioner in view of the fact that no such benefit has been accorded to similarly situated persons, namely Dharam Dev and Tilak Raj, whose cases the petitioner had relied upon. Petitioner has been unable to demonstrate that arrears of salary were paid to similar situated persons such as Tilak Raj and Dharam Dev. As such, claim of the petitioner is misconceived. Even otherwise, the petitioner is not entitled to arrears of salary for a period of antedated promotion also on the principle of “No Work, No Pay” in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. B. M. Jha, Law Finder Doc Id # 489371. The relevant paras of the said judgment reads as under: “Constitution of India, Article 16- Promotion- Retrospectively- Principle of no pay no work-Applicable-Arrears of salary cannot be granted. “ 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 & Ors. v. D.P. Gupta & Ors., [1996] 7 SCC 533 and followed in the case of A.K. Soumini v. State Bank of Travancore JT SEEMA 2026.07.08 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26665-2022 (O&M) -13- (2003) 8 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 & Ors., (1999) 3 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 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, Principle Bench.” 18. Accordingly, the instant Civil Writ Petition stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (NIDHI GUPTA) JUDGE 06th July, 2026 Sima Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No SEEMA 2026.07.08 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document