2026:HHC:26616 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5434 of 2024 Decided on: 02.07.2026 Dr. Naveen Kaplas ...Petitioner Versus Chairman HRTC-cum-Transport Minister and another ...Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes For the petitioner: Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner by way of present petition has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “i) That the impugned part of order dated 8.3.2019, Annexure P-7, restricting the actual monetary benefit, from the date of joining the post of General Manager on promotion instead of the actual date of promotion i.e. 9.1.2015 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the respondent corporation may be directed to grant actual monetary benefits to the petitioner from the date of his promotion as General Manager i.e. 9.1.2015, pursuant to office order dated 8.3.2019, Annexure P-7, with interest at market rate on delayed payments.” 2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:26616 the petitioner was appointed as Regional Manager with respondent No.2-Corporation in the month of August, 1995 and thereafter promoted to the post(s) of Deputy Divisional Manager in the year 2004 and Divisional Manager in the year 2010. The petitioner was issued a memorandum dated 10.02.2012 (Annexure P-1), whereby he was informed that action against him under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, (in short ‘CCS(CCA) Rules’), is proposed to be taken and he was asked to submit the representation within 10 days of the receipt of the memorandum. A statement of the imputation of misconduct or misbehavior, on which, the action was proposed to be taken was also enclosed. The Articles of charge were that the petitioner had committed financial irregularities amounting to Rs.2,20,122/- as pointed out in the Audit Report for the year 2003-2004 and Internal Audit Report for the years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 (up to November, 2008), when he remained as Drawing & Disbursing Officer/Head of office in HRTC Nahan and Solan Units. He was found negligent in performance his duties. The petitioner after receipt of memorandum asked for the documents and thereafter submitted reply and requested to 3 2026:HHC:26616 drop the charges. 3. The charges were not dropped. However, on 22.02.2014, the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee (in short ‘DPC’) was convened for promotion to the post of General Manager and the candidature of the petitioner was also considered, since he was eligible candidate and in the zone of consideration. But, keeping in view the fact that the proceedings were initiated against him under Rule 16 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, the recommendations in respect of the petitioner were kept in a sealed cover. 4. After conclusion of the enquiry, respondent No.2- Corporation vide office order dated 27.02.2017 (Annexure P- 3) imposed a penalty of ‘Censure’ on the petitioner. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the office order of penalty, preferred an appeal before respondent No.1, being the Appellate Authority, who vide order dated 06.03.2019 (Annexure P-4), set aside the order of penalty of Censure imposed upon him and the Audit Paras/Objections raised, were completely dropped. Even the amount mentioned against the Audit Paras was ordered to be written off. After passing the order in the appeal, respondent No.2- 4 2026:HHC:26616 Corporation passed an office order dated 07.03.2019 (Annexure P-5), thereby exonerating the petitioner and setting aside the order of penalty dated 27.02.2017 and even the remaining Audit Paras/ Objections were completely dropped. 5. After passing the aforesaid order dated 07.03.2019, whereby the petitioner was exonerated of the charges, he made a request for opening of the sealed cover recommendations of the DPC held on 22.02.2014, for the post of General Manager. Upon considering the request made by the petitioner, respondent No.2-Corporation passed an office order on 08.03.2019 and promoted the petitioner to the post of General Manager in the pay band of Rs.37400-67000+8700/- grade pay on notional basis w.e.f. 09.01.2015 and on actual basis from the date he joins the post. The petitioner in compliance with the order joined as General Manager. Thereafter, he preferred an appeal before respondent No.1 on 16.03.2020 (Annexure P-9) claiming full wages, since he was exonerated of the charges leveled against him. However, no action was taken by respondent No.1 and he again made a representation on 23.06.2021 (Annexure P-10) and thereafter many reminders 5 2026:HHC:26616 were issued and lastly a reminder was issued on 20.11.2023. Despite receipts of reminders, no action was taken. 6. The petitioner has now approached this Court claiming that the order passed by respondent No.2- Corporation on 08.03.2019, restricting the actual monetary benefits from the date of joining on the post of General Manager on promotion, instead of actual date of promotion i.e. 09.01.2015, is illegal inasmuch as once the petitioner was exonerated of the charges, he ought to have been granted the actual monetary benefits from the date when other persons have been promoted. It has also been averred that the petitioner was always willing and available to discharge the duties of the post of General manager, but on account of impugned charge-memo for minor penalty, he was illegally denied the benefit of promotion and once he has come out clean of the charges leveled against him, there is no reason as to why all the benefits from which he was kept away unjustly should not be restored to him. 7. The petitioner has also averred in the petition that the petitioner had submitted an appeal for considering the promotion on actual basis instead of notional basis on 6 2026:HHC:26616 16.03.2020 and thereafter reminders were issued in continuation to his appeal on 23.06.2021 and lastly on 20.11.2023. It has also been averred that on 03.09.2021, his wife was diagnosed with CARCINOMA LEFT BREAST STAGE-IIIC- ON NACT (Breast Cancer Stage-III) at the Department of Oncology, Fortis Hospital, Mohali (Punjab). According to the treatment plan, she was advised to undergo 2 weekly 8 sessions of Chemotherapy, then Surgery, then Hormonal Therapy, then Radiotherapy followed by Hormonal therapy 3 weekly 17 sessions. The Chemotherapy sessions started from 03.09.2021 and Immunotherapy started from 02.11.2021 (17 cycles) and concluded on 02.12.2022. After completion of Immunotherapy (17 sessions/cycles), the patient has to go for periodical follow up/check up. In the month of October, 2021, daughter of the petitioner fell down from stairs and sustained injuries in the Spinal Chord (L1 Vertebrae and T12 Vertebrae). Besides this, injuries were also sustained in nose and right foot. She remained under treatment at Fortis Hospital Mohali, Punjab and Trinity Hospital Chandigarh (mainly for Physiotherapy). Even the chart of the summary has been placed on record and due to that reason, he could 7 2026:HHC:26616 not approach the Court immediately after his retirement. 8. The respondents filed reply to the petition and raised preliminary submissions that the petition is not maintainable in its form as the petitioner has misrepresented the facts and has not approached the Court with clean hands. Thus, the principle of Supressio Veri and Suggestio Falsi is applicable against the petitioner. The petitioner has tried to place false and twisted facts before the Court with malafide intention and to prejudice the mind of the Court and the petition deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost. It has also been averred that DPC was met on 22.02.2014 (wrongly mentioned as 20.02.2014) for promotion to the post of General Manager and the name of the petitioner was also considered by the DPC and his recommendations were kept in a sealed cover as disciplinary proceedings were pending against him. After conclusion of the proceedings, the petitioner was promoted to the post of General Manager on notional basis w.e.f. 09.01.2015, vide office order dated 08.03.2019 and his appeal was considered by the Hon’ble Chairman being the Appointing Authority, who had completely exonerated him from all the charges leveled against him vide charge sheet 8 2026:HHC:26616 dated 10.02.2012, vide office order dated 07.03.2019. 9. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply and has also placed on record the affidavit filed by respondent No.2-Corporation stating therein that out of total medical bills amounting to Rs.5,79,625/-, medical bills of Rs.83,604/- was pertaining to his wife who is suffering from Chronic Diseases (Cancer) which has been cleared and no bill is pending of Chronic Diseases. Since rest of the amount of Rs.4,96,021/- does not fall in the category of Chronic Disease, as prescribed by the Board of Directors, the balance amount will be paid to him with the other pensioners of the Corporation. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 11. Mr. Manish Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the judgment passed by a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. K.V. Jankiraman and others, (1991) 4 SCC 109, wherein the issue has succinctly been dealt with and held that if an employee has been kept away from the work by the authorities for no fault on his part, then after exoneration, he has to be given the 9 2026:HHC:26616 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 disciplinary/criminal proceedings. The relevant paras of the judgment read as under :- “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 although he is willing to work is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his. This is not a 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 disciplinary/criminal proceedings. However, there may be cases where the proceedings, whether disciplinary or criminal, are, for example, delayed 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 employee 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 consider-ation may become necessary. To ignore, however, such circumstances when they exist and lay down an inflexible 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 administration and jeopardise public interests. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the 10 2026:HHC:26616 Tribunal that to deny the salary to an employee would in all circumstances be illegal. While, therefore, we do not 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." 12. In the present case, it is not even disputed by the respondents that the petitioner could not perform the duties only on account of the fact that the disciplinary proceedings were pending against him and the recommendations made by the DPC were kept in a sealed cover. Once the petitioner was exonerated of the charges, respondent No.2-Corporation ought to have promoted him to the post of General Manager from the date when other persons were promoted with all service benefits and not on notional basis. The petitioner was kept away from the work by respondent No.2-Corporation and there is no fault on his part and thus, he is entitled to the benefit of the salary of the post of General Manager along with other benefits from 11 2026:HHC:26616 the date on which he would have normally been promoted i.e. 09.01.2015, but for the disciplinary proceedings, the recommendations of DPC were kept in sealed cover. It has not been denied by the respondents in the reply that the other persons were promoted to the post of General Manager w.e.f. 09.01.2015. Once the petitioner was completely exonerated of the charges and even the Audit Paras were dropped, as evident from a perusal of office order dated 07.03.2009 (Annexure P-5), there is no justification to deny the actual benefits to the petitioner from the date when other persons have been promoted to the post of General manager. The petitioner, if promoted, ought to have performed the duties of the post of General Manager. Furthermore, he was issued the memorandum under Rule 16 of the CCS(CCA) Rules for imposing the minor penalty. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of this Court to the judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.4897 of 2022, titled, Sh. Surender Pal Chadha versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another, wherein the Court after considering the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme 12 2026:HHC:26616 Court in the aforementioned case held that the petitioner in that case was denied the right to hold the charge of the post of Principal (School Cadre), only on account of the pendency of departmental proceedings and as he was subsequently exonerated in the departmental proceedings, he is entitled for full benefit of the post of Principal (School Cadre), which have been given to his contemporaries and persons juniors to him. It has also been held that the petitioner in that case cannot be discriminated. The relevant paras of the judgment read as under:- “9. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner was denied the right to hold the charge of the post of Principal (School Cadre), only on account of the pendency of departmental proceedings and as he was subsequently exonerated in the departmental proceedings, therefore, he is entitled for full benefit of the post of Principal (School Cadre) as have been given to his contemporaries and persons junior to him. He cannot be discriminated in this regard. As far as the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that because the petitioner did not perform the duty, therefore, he is not entitled to the relief prayed for or Fundamental Rule 17 (1) comes in the way of the petitioner, these contentions of the learned Additional Advocate General do not have any merit, as these issues have been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and others Vs. K.V. Jankiraman and others (supra), in which, it has been categorically held that though the normal rule is “no work and no pay”, but on many occasions 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 privitations, which are multiplied when he is also placed under suspension. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that 13 2026:HHC:26616 when at the end of such suffering, he comes out clean with a clean deed, he has to be restored to all the benefits from which he was kept away unjustly. Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held 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 criminal proceedings. 10. Therefore, in the light of the law so declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and in the backdrop of the fact that the petitioner was not punished in the departmental proceedings, but was honorably exonerated, the act of the respondents-State of not conferring actual benefits to the petitioner, in terms of notification dated 08.03.2019, as stands conferred to persons junior to him upon their promotion against the post of Principal (School Cadre), is held to be bad in law. This petition is therefore allowed. Notification dated 08.03.2019, is ordered to be read down to the effect that the date of posting of the petitioner as a Principal on placement basis, shall be with effect from 02.06.2016 with all consequential benefits, as stand conferred to the incumbents similarly situated as the petitioner, more so, his juniors. Let needful be done, within three months from today, failing which, respondents shall be liable to pay interest to the petitioner at the rate of 6% from the date of the judgment.” 14. Learned counsel representing the respondents has vehemently argued that the petition is not maintainable and further the petitioner has misrepresented the facts and has not approached the Court with clean hands, however, he could not satisfy the Court that how the petition is not maintainable and what material facts have been concealed by the petitioner from the Court. It has also been forcefully 14 2026:HHC:26616 argued by him that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition. Once the petitioner has been denied the promotion, only on account of the fact that he was facing the departmental proceedings, and when subsequently he was promoted from the date when other persons were promoted w.e.f. 09.01.2015, there is no justification to promote him on notional basis. He is entitled to all the service benefits including salary as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case. 15. The petitioner once having been exonerated of the charged leveled against him cannot be deprived of his right to claim the monetary benefits from the date when other persons were promoted w.e.f. 09.01.2015, from which date, he has been promoted on notional basis. No reasons have been assigned by respondent No.2-Corporation while denying the benefit of salary to the petitioner and once the petitioner was forced not to work on the post only on account of the disciplinary proceedings pending against him, he cannot be said to be at fault to perform the duties and thus the principle of “No work, No pay” principle, will not be attracted to his case. 16. Learned counsel representing the petitioner has 15 2026:HHC:26616 submitted that due to withholding of monetary benefits, the petitioner is unable to take care of his wife and the respondents have not even released the medical bills, which have been submitted long back. He further submits that she has been advised to undergo surgery and due to shortage of funds, he is facing difficulties. Therefore, keeping in view the extraordinary circumstances, the Court is passing the order to release the monetary benefits in a time bound manner. 17. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 08.03.2019 (Annexure P-7), restricting the actual monetary benefit from the date of joining the post of General Manager on promotion instead of the actual date of promotion i.e. 09.01.2015, is quashed and set aside and the petitioner is held entitled to the monetary benefits on the post of General Manager w.e.f. 09.01.2015, with all consequential benefits. The respondents are directed to release the salary of the post of General Manager including other monetary benefits to the petitioner within one month from today, failing which, the respondents shall pay interest on the arrears @6% per annum, from the due date till actual payment. No order as 16 2026:HHC:26616 to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 02 nd July , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge