2025:HHC:37401 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7702 of 2024 Decided on: 07.11.2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shyam Lal …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Naresh K Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner superannuated from service on 30.04.2023. He was exonerated from disciplinary proceedings on 19.09.2023. Petitioner was discharged in the criminal case by the learned Special Judge-II Mandi, District Mandi on 28.08.2023. Consequent upon petitioner’s exoneration, the competent authority considered his case for promotion and accorded him promotion as officiating Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) on notional basis w.e.f. 22.04.2011. With the grievance that he 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:37401 was entitled to all actual financial benefits on account of his promotion to the post of ASI w.e.f. 22.04.2011, petitioner has instituted this writ petition. 2. The Case 2(ii) Petitioner joined the respondent-Department as Constable on regular basis on 22.12.1986. He was promoted as Head Constable on 27.01.1995. 2(ii) During petitioner’s service, FIR No.393 of 2006 dated 17.09.2006 was registered against him and some other persons under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 409, 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code. 2(iii) Petitioner qualified the Intermediate School Course from Police Training Centre Daroh in the term ending November 2011 in 24th batch. He was accordingly admitted to promotion list D-1 dated 14.02.2011, petitioner, however, was not promoted. His name was removed from D-1 list on 08.03.2011 owing to registration of aforesaid FIR against him. Petitioner preferred Shyam Lal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Other2, before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, wherein, one of 2 T.A. No.2926 of 2015 decided on 03.07.2017 3 2025:HHC:37401 the contentions raised was that alongwith petitioner, there were other accused persons in the FIR including one Head Constable Gian Chand. Petitioner alleged that the aforesaid Sh. Gian Chand was his junior, had been promoted to the rank of officiating ASI, petitioner, therefore, was also entitled to similar treatment. The petition was disposed of with directions to the respondents-State to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the rank of ASI on officiating basis in accordance with rules/law at par with the aforesaid Head Constable Gian Chand. Pursuant to the above direction, respondents considered the case of the petitioner under order dated 08.11.2018, holding therein that said Sh. Gian Chand had been erroneously granted promotion; Approval of promotion to Sh. Gian Chand had been withdrawn and he had been reverted to original rank of Head Constable on 04.09.2018. With this reasoning, petitioner’s request for promotion at par with that of HC Gian Chand was held to be not tenable and rejected. It is an admitted position of the parties that subsequent representation preferred by Sh. Gian Chand for not withdrawing his promotion and consequential benefits, was accepted and the aforesaid Sh.Gian Chand continued 4 2025:HHC:37401 to enjoy his seniority, promotion as ASI and the financial benefits attached thereto. 2(iv) Respondent issued summary charge sheet to the petitioner on 29.09.2018. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner instituted Shyam Lal Vs. State of H.P. and others3. The said petition was dismissed primarily on the ground that petitioner could not make out a case for assailing the mere show-cause notice/issuance of summary charge sheet. Subsequent thereto, a detailed charge-sheet in accordance with law was issued by the respondents on 18.01.2023. Petitioner filed reply thereto on 24.01.2023. The disciplinary authority i.e. the Superintendent of Police Mandi, District Mandi on 18.03.2023 imposed punishment of permanent forfeiture of 2 years of approved service with cumulative effect upon the petitioner. 2(v) Petitioner appealed against order dated 18.03.2023. In the meanwhile, petitioner also moved an application under Section 227 of Criminal Procedure Code for discharging him in the criminal case that was registered against him on the basis of FIR No.393 of 2006. His application was considered by learned Special Judge–II Mandi, and vide order dated 28.08.2023, the same was 3 CWP No.5991 of 2020 decided on 10.08.2021 5 2025:HHC:37401 allowed. Petitioner was discharged. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority was allowed on 19.09.2023. Punishment of permanent forfeiture of 2 years approved service with cumulative effect was set aside. 2(vi) Petitioner in the interregnum had superannuated from service on 30.04.2023 from the rank of Head Constable. Based upon exoneration of the petitioner, the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh issued an office order dated 01.07.2024, ordering promotion of the petitioner as officiating ASI on notional basis w.e.f. 22.04.2011. 2(vii) Feeling aggrieved against the grant of notional promotion, petitioner instituted this writ petition on 18.07.2024, seeking following substantive relief:- “(i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued and the respondents may kindly be directed to grant all consequential/financial benefits alongwith up to date interest @12% per annum to the petitioner on account of his promotion to the post of ASI w.e.f. 22.04.2011.” 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 6 2025:HHC:37401 4. Consideration 4(i) The facts detailed above are not in dispute. During the course of hearing learned Deputy Advocate General fairly admitted that all along the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of ASI had been kept in sealed cover by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). Owing to registration of FIR and criminal case against him, as also pendency of disciplinary proceedings, the sealed cover was not opened. The sealed cover was opened only after exoneration of the petitioner by the Appellate Authority in the disciplinary proceedings. 4(ii) Admittedly, petitioner was eligible for promotion to the post of ASI in the year 2011. It is for this reason that he has now been promoted on notional basis as ASI w.e.f. 22.04.2011. On the said date, neither any disciplinary proceedings were pending against the petitioner nor the charges had been framed against him in the criminal case that was registered on the basis of FIR No.393 of 2006. In fact, charges were never framed against the petitioner in the criminal case, rather he was discharged by the competent Court on 28.08.2023. Summary charge-sheet (disciplinary proceedings) was issued to the petitioner on 29.09.2018 and comprehensive Memorandum of Charge-sheet was 7 2025:HHC:37401 issued to him only on 18.01.2023. In the given facts, keeping petitioner’s case for promotion in a sealed cover in the year 2011 and onwards was not justified in light of settled legal position. (Reference: Jyoti Swarup Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh4). Be that as it may. 4(iii) Disciplinary proceedings by issuance of summary charge sheet were initiated against the petitioner only on 29.09.2018 and Comprehensive Memorandum of Charge-sheet was issued to him on 28.01.2023. Despite that, the Departmental Promotion Committees convened on 22.04.2011 and from time to time thereafter, did not care to open the sealed cover of the petitioner. Petitioner has now been exonerated by the respondents themselves in the disciplinary proceedings. In order to give effect to said order, respondents were required to open the sealed cover and to act accordingly. Here, it would be in place to refer to Union of India and others Vs. K.V. Jankiraman and others5, which holds that normal rule of ‘no work no pay’ is not applicable to cases where the employee although is willing to work is kept away from the work by the authority for no fault of his………….. When an employee is completely 4 CWP No.6350 of 2022 decided on 15.05.2025 5 (1991)4 SCC 109 8 2025:HHC:37401 exonerated meaning thereby that he is not found blameworthy in the least and is not visited with the penalty even of censure, he has to be given the benefit of the salary of the higher post alongwith the other benefits from the date on which he would have normally been promoted but for the disciplinary/criminal proceedings. Relevant paras from the decision are as under: - “24 It was further contended on their behalf that the normal rule is "no work no pay". Hence a person cannot be allowed to draw the benefits of a post the duties of which he has not discharged. To allow him to do so is against the elementary rule that a person is to be paid only for the work he has done and not for the work he has not done. As against this, it was pointed out on behalf of the concerned employees, that on many occasions even frivolous proceedings are instituted at the instance of interested persons, sometimes with a specific object of denying the promotion due, and the employee concerned is made to suffer both mental agony and privations which are multiplied when he is also placed Under suspension. When, therefore, at the end of such sufferings, he comes out with a clean bill, he has to be restored to all the benefits from which he was kept away unjust- ly. 25 We are not much impressed by the contentions advanced on behalf of the authorities. The normal rule of "no work no pay" is not applicable to cases such as the present one where the employee al- though he is willing to work is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his. This is not a 9 2025:HHC:37401 case where the employee remains away from work for his own reasons, although the work is offered to him. It is for this reason that F.R. 17(1) will also be inapplicable to such cases. 26. We are, therefore, broadly in agreement with the finding of the Tribunal that when an employee is completely exonerated meaning thereby that he is not 'found blameworthy in the least and is not visited with the penalty even of censure, he has to be given the benefit of the salary of the higher post along with the other benefits from the date on which he would have normally been promoted but for the discipli- nary/ criminal proceedings. However, there may be cases' where the proceedings, whether disciplinary or criminal, are, for example, delay at the instance of the employee or the clearance in the disciplinary proceedings or acquittal in the criminal proceedings is with benefit of doubt or on account of non-availability of evidence due to the acts attributable to the em- ployee etc. In such circumstances, the concerned authorities must be vested with the power to decide whether the employee at all deserves any salary for the intervening period and if he does the extent to which he deserves it. Life being complex, it is not possible to anticipate and enumerate exhaustively all the circumstances under which such consideration may become necessary. To ignore however, such circumstances when they exist and lay down' an in flexible rule that in every case when an employee is exonerated in disciplinary/ criminal proceedings he should be entitled to all salary for the intervening period is to undermine discipline in the administra- tion and jeopardize public interests. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the Tribunal that to deny the salary to an employee would in all circumstances be illegal. While, therefore, we do not 10 2025:HHC:37401 approve of the said last sentence in the first sub- paragraph after clause (iii) of paragraph 3 of the said Memorandum, viz.. "but no arrears of pay shall be payable to him for the period of notional promotion preceding the date of actual promotion", we direct that in place of the said sentence the following sentence be read in the Memorandum: "However, whether the officer concerned will be entitled to any arrears of pay for the period of notional promotion preceding the date of actual promotion, and if so to what extent, will be decided by the concerned authority by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the disciplinary proceeding/ criminal prosecution. Where the authority denies arrears of salary or part of it, it will record its reasons for doing so." The ratio of the above decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. The petitioner was kept away from the work by the respondents. It is the respondents who did not promote the petitioner at the relevant time. Petitioner had also been taking appropriate remedies for the redressal of his grievances at the relevant time. Therefore, principle of ‘no work no pay’ for denying actual benefits flowing from petitioner’s promotion to the post of ASI post his exoneration from disciplinary proceedings and discharge from Criminal Case (these two proceedings were not even pending when DPC kept petitioner’s case for promotion in sealed cover) cannot be applied. Petitioner is liable to be promoted on actual basis 11 2025:HHC:37401 so that he gets financial benefits of the promotion, unlawfully denied to him. 5. In view of above, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to confer actual promotion and actual monetary benefits to the petitioner consequent upon his promotion as officiating Assistant Sub Inspector w.e.f. 22.04.2011. Its consequences upon petitioner’s retiral benefits be also worked out accordingly. All financial benefits accruing to the petitioner on that basis, be released in his favour within six weeks from today. Failure shall entail payment of financial benefits @ 5% interest per annum from due date. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua November 7, 2025 Judge R.Atal