IN THE HIGGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARRYANA AT CHANDIGARH 211 CWP-5771--2024 (O&M) Date of Deecision:- 27.08.2026 Jaswant Sinngh … Petitioner Versus State of Haaryana and another ... Respondents CORAM: HONN'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTAA Present:- Mr. AArvind Seth, Advocate for thhe petitioner. Mr. HHarish Kumar Nain, DAG, Haryanna. ****** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Preseent Civil Writ Petition und er Articles 226/227 of thee Constitution of I ndia has been filed by the peetitioner for issuance of a writt nature of certiorrari to quash the following porrtion of the office order datedd 25.07.2014 "His pay as Assistant from the dee med date of promotion to thee actual date of proomotion, will be fixed notionall y and he will not be entitled too any arrear on t his account"; and issue a wriit of mandamus directing thee respondents to g rant the arrear of pay from 12.008.2011 to 12.02.2012 when thee juniors have beenn promoted alongwith interest @@ 18% per annum. NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.02 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5771-2024 ((O&M) - 2 - 1. Brieff facts of the case in chronol ogical order are as follows: –– 05.08.1976: Petittioner was appointed as a Cleerk-cum-Typist in the Haryanaa Minerals Limited (A State Government Undertaki ng) on 05.08.1976. 18.4.1977: The peetitioner was designated as Stenno-Typist w.e.f. 18.04.1977. 22.08.1987: The petitioner was promoted as Juunior Scale Stenographer w.e.f.. 22.08.1987.

06.09.1990: The ppetitioner was further promotedd as Assistant w.e.f. 06.09.1990. 25.01.2001: Vide order dated 25.01.2001, petitiioner was declared surplus andd retrenched from service. 21.06.2006: Vide Notification dated 21.06.2006 ((Annexure P-1), respondent No.. 1 had issued a Sccheme regarding re-employmennt of regular retrenched Groupp 'C' and Group 'D' employees of Boards/Corporatiions/Public Sector Undertakingss etc., who were reetrenched during the period 011.03.2000 to 01.03.2005 againstt the vacancy of dirrect recruitment. 08.02.2007: Purs uant to the above, name of thee petitioner was recommendedd for direct recruitment at the post of Clerk in Haryana Civil Secretariat,, Chandigarh. 14.2.2007: The ppetitioner joined in the Haryanna Civil Secretariat on post off Clerk. NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.02 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5771-2024 ((O&M) - 3 - 13.06.2011: Theppetitioner had then submitted reepresentation dated 13.06.20111 (Annexure P-2) foor grant of ACP grade. 12.08.2011: It is the case of the petitioner thaat junior of petitioner namely,, Ashok Kumar Vyaas was promoted at the post of AAssistant. 09.09.2011: Petittioner raised a grievance againsst promotion of his junior videe representation daated 09.09.2011 (Annexure P-3) .

31.03.2014: Petittioner retired from servic e after attaining age off superannuation i .e. 58 years vide order dated 20 .03.2014 (Annexure P-5). 25/28.07.2014: UUpon fixation of seniority, petitiooner was promoted as Assistantt w.e.f. 12.08.20111 i.e. the date on which, Sh. Ashook Kumar Vyas was promoted. 22.08.2014: Petittioner filed representation (Annnexure P-6) seeking fixation off pay from 12.08.22011 onwards and release the arrrear of pay from 12.08.2011 too 12.02.2012. 02.06.2016: Petittioner filed a CWP No. 13541 off 2016 before this Court seekingg honorarium in lieeu of pension and arrears upon rretrospective promotion. 19.12.2023: Vide order dated 19.12.2023(Annexxure P-8), the said writ Petitionn was disposed of aas having been not pressed with liberty to file afresh. 06/07.03.2024: AAs petitioner was not granted ar rear of pay w.e.f. 12.08.2011 tilll 12.02.2012, hencce the present writ petition. NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.02 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5771-2024 ((O&M) - 4 -

2. Ld. CCounsel for the petitioner inter aalia submits that the proceduree as prescribed in the Notification dated 21.6.22006 (Annexure P-1) regardingg seniority of age hhas not been followed in letter and spirit; and vide Memo. No.. 23/23/2005-2GSI II dated 13.10.2006, name of tthe petitioner was deliberatelyy recommended aggainst the promotional post of AAssistant in HUDA. As such, thee name of the peti tioner was referred back with tthe remarks that the scheme iss regarding re-empployment against the vacancies of direct recruitment, whereass the names of juniiors of the petitioner were recommmended against the vacanciess of direct recruitmment to the post of UDC and CClerk/Meter Reader in the payy scale of Rs. 4625 -7000 and Rs. 4000-6000/- resppectively in UHBVN/DHBVN andd they joined their duties in October 2006.

3. Therreafter, the name of the petiti oner was again recommendedd vide Memo. No. 223/23/2005-2GSIII dated 8.2.20007 against the vacancy of directt recruitment to thhe post of Clerk in Haryana Civi l Secretariat, Chandigarh in thee pay scale of Rs. 33050-4950/- + Rs. 40/- as speciaal pay and the petitioner joinedd on the said post oon 14.2.2007, whereas the junioors have got higher pay scale i.e.. of Rs. 4625-70000 and Rs. 4000-6000/- respectiveely. Ld. Counsel points out thatt Sh. Ashok Kumar Vyas who joined his duty in Occtober 2006 to the post of Clerkk in Haryana Civil Secretariat was about 10 year s junior from the petitioner inn Haryana Mineralss Limited and was also junior in aage. Yet, he was made senior too the petitioner in Haryana Civil Secretariat. Wheereas in the notification datedd 21.6.2006, it is mmentioned that senior in age wwill be the criteria for fixing thee NEELAM seniority.KUMARI In the ppresent case, petitioner is higheer in age than the other personn 2026.09.02 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5771-2024 ((O&M) - 5 - his basic pay was Rs. 8550/- but the basic pay of the petitioner was Rs.8300/-. Itt is urged that, therefore, the petitioner has to facee financial loss as well.

4. It is ffurther submitted that in the yeear 2011, when the junior of thee petitioner (Ashokk Kumar) was promoted as Assisstant, petitioner had submittedd his representatio n to respondent No. 1 on 09.09..2011 (Annexure P-3) and raisedd the grievance thaat as Ashok Kumar Vyas was junnior to the petitioner therefore,, petitioner may also be promoted to the post off Assistant from the date whenn his junior (Ashok Kumar Vyas) was promoted. 5. In thhe meantime, petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2014 onn attaining the agge of superannuation vide ooffice order dated 20.03.20144 (Annexure P-5). 6. Therreafter, vide order dated 28.007.2014 (Annexure P-7), uponn fixation of senior ity, petitioner was deemed to bee promoted as Assistant in PB-22 w.e.f. 12.08.20111, the date when his junior, Ashook Kumar Vyas, Clerk, had beenn promoted. 7. Howwever, although petitioner hadd been granted seniority, noo arrears or monettary benefits were granted to thhe petitioner from deemed datee of promotion. AAs such, petitioner had subbmitted representation datedd 22.08.2014 (Anneexure P-6) to respondent No. 11 with the prayer to fix his payy from 12.08.20111 onwards and release arrearrs of pay from 12.08.2011 too 12.02.2012. NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.02 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5771-2024 ((O&M) - 6 -

8. As nno action was taken upon the representation (Annexure P-6),, petitioner had appproached this Court by way off CWP No. 13541 of 2016, interr alia seeking the foollowing prayers:- “(i) A writ in the nature of cerrtiorari to quash the letter datedd 28.9.2015 (Annexure P-10) isssued by the Respondent No. II vide which payment of Earneed Leave to the petitioner hass been denied. (ii) A writ of mandamus dire cting the respondents to countt the past service of the petitionner rendered by him in Haryanaa Mineral Limited. (iii) A writ of mandamus direecting the respondents to grantt the arrear of pay from 12.8.20011 i.e. from the date when thee junior of the petitioner has been promoted, which is clearr from the order dated 28.7.20114 (Annexure P-6). (iv) A writ of mandamus direecting the respondents to grantt Balance Leave Encashment, GGratuity and medical allowancee @ Rs. 500/- per month whiich has not been given to thee petitioner from the date of his retirement with interest @@ 18% per annum. (v) A writ of mandamus direecting respondents to grant thee pension per month to the peti tioner for which he is entitled. vi) A writ of mandamus dire cting the respondents to grantt First ACP Grade to the petitiioner in respect of past servicee benefit in the parent departmeent.” NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.02 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5771-2024 ((O&M) - 7 -

9. It is pointed out that the said writ ppetition came to be disposed off by this Court videe order dated 19.12.2023 (Annexxure P-8). It is submitted that inn respect of the prrayer made by the petitioner f or grant of arrears of pay, thiss Court had specificcally observed as follows:-“4. The second grievance raaised by the petitioner is that hee has not been given the actuall arrears upon the retrospectivee promotion as ordered vide A nnexure P-6 dated 25.07.2014. He further submits that th ere is no challenge to orderr Annexure P-6 and the saaid order had already beenn implemented in its letter annd spirit and as per the orderr Annexure P-6 dated 25.07.20014, the arrears were not to bee given and the promotion wass to be given notionally withoutt any arrears. Hence, in the abbsence of any challenge to thee said order, no benefit of arreaars can be granted. 5. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for thee petitioner submitted that thee present prayer may kindly bee disposed of as having been not pressed at this stage withh liberty to agitate the same afresh by filing fresh petitionn challenging Annexure P-6. 6. Ordered accordingly.” 10. It is submitted that accordingly, peetitioner is entitled for grant off arrears w.e.f. 122.08.2011 to 12.02.2012. In su pport, ld. Counsel relies uponn judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rammesh Kumar v. Union of Indiaa (SC): Law Finder DDoc Id # 697228 2015 (3) SCT 7004. NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.02 11:01

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5771-2024 ((O&M) - 8 - 11. Accoordingly, prays that the presentt writ petition be allowed and prays to quash the following portion of the office order dated 25.07.20144 (Annexure P-7) "HHis pay as Assistant from the deeemed date of promotion to thee actual date of proomotion, will be fixed notionall y and he will not be entitled too any arrear on thiss account" and directions be issuued to the respondents to grantt the arrears of paay from 12.08.2011 to 12.02.20012 when the junior has beenn promoted alongwwith interest @ 18% per annum. 12. Per contra, ld. State counsel has opposed submissions of thee petitioner and c ontended that the petitioner had retired in the year 2014;; whereas the present writ petition has been fil ed only in the year 2024. It iss contended that therefore, the present writ peetition is barred by delay andd laches. 13. Ld. SState counsel further submits thaat petitioner has not worked onn the post of Assisttant. As such, on the principle off 'No Work No Pay', petitioner iss not entitled to anny arrears on this account. 14. No oother argument is made on be half of learned counsel for thee parties. I have heeard ld. counsel and perused thee case file and record in detail. II find no merit inn the submissions advanced o n behalf of the learned Statee counsel.

15. The entitlement of the petitioner for promotion from date hiss junior was prom oted, is not disputed by the leearned State Counsel. The onlyy NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.02 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5771-2024 ((O&M) - 9 - ground on whicch claim of the petitioner is opposed is delay. However,, admittedly, uponn his retrospective promotion as ordered vide Annexure P-77 dated 28.07.201 4, petitioner had firstly apprroached the Department videe representation dated 22.08.2014 (Annexure P-66) seeking fixation of pay fromm 12.08.2011. As noo action was taken upon the sadd representation, petitioner hadd then approached this Court by way of CWP No. 13541 of 2016 and had soughtt arrears of pay. Ass noted above, the said prayer o f the petitioner was disposed off by this Court videe order dated 19.12.2023 (Anneexure P-8), as having been "nott pressed at this sstage with liberty to agitate thhe same afresh by filing freshh petition challeng ing....". Soon thereafter, petitiooner has filed the instant writt petition. Hence, iit cannot be said that claim of t he petitioner is barred by delayy and laches.

16. As reegards contention of the learneed State counsel that petitionerr is not entitled to arrears of pay in view of principple of 'No Work No Pay', there iss no merit in the said argument as well. It is esttablished from the facts notedd above that the peetitioner was illegally denied prromotion while his juniors weree promoted. Deniaal of promotion to the petitio ner is also in violation of thee Instructions/P-1. Accordingly, the respondents haad subsequently corrected theirr mistake vide order dated 28.07.2014 (Annexuree P-7) granting deemed date off promotion with eeffect from 12.08.2011. This cl early shows that there was noo fault of the petitiioner and thus, denying arrearss of pay for that period is illegall and has caused uundue hardship and loss to the ppetitioner. Ld. State counsel hass NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.02 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5771-2024 ((O&M) - 10 - been unable to distinguish the judgmentin Rameesh Kumar supra relied upon byy the petitioner, whherein it has been held that:

“13. We are conscious that e ven in the absence of statutoryy provision, normal rule is "noo work no pay". In appropriatee cases, a court of law may taake into account all the facts inn their entirety and pass an apppropriate order in consonancee with law. The principle of "nno work no pay" would not bee attracted where the responndents were in fault in nott considering the case of the apppellant for promotion and nott allowing the appellant to w ork on a post of NaibSubedarr carrying higher pay scale. Inn the facts of the present casee when the appellant was grantted promotion w.e.f. 01.01.20000 with the ante-dated seniiority from 01.08.1997 andd maintaining his seniority alonngwith his batchmates, it wouldd be unjust to deny him higher pay and allowances in thee promotional position of NaibSSubedar.” 14. The impugned orders passsed by the High Court are sett aside and this appeal is alllowed. The respondents shalll release the arrears of pay andd allowances to the appellant forr the period from 01.08.19977 till the date of his actuall promotion that is 13.11.2000 in the promotional post of Naibb Subedar within eight weekss from today. No order as too costs." (Emphasis added) 17. Simillar view has been taken by thhis Court in Harvinder Kaur vss State of Haryanna (P & H) Law Finder Doc 1DD# 2860285 2026 (1) SLJ 2077 wherein it has be en held as under:- NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.02 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5771-2024 ((O&M) - 11 -

"24. Thus, the denial of benefifit to the petitioners lies ill in thee mouth of the respondent-deepartment, for it is an all tooo familiar argument with the exploiting class and a welfaree State committed to a socialis tic pattern of society cannot bee permitted to advance such arggument. 25. The court is of the opinionn that since the petitioners weree deprived of promotion due to an illegal act of the respondentt department and was later ppromoted retrospectively afterr correction of the illegality, dennial of actual monetary benefitss would amount to perpetuatiing the original wrong. Equity, fairness, and settled service jjurisprudence demand that thee petitioner be placed, as far ass possible, in the same positionn in which he would have been but for the illegal action of thee department.

26. It is a sad paradox that aa civil servant, who should be aa partner in the State's missionn of service, was forced into aa multiple rounds of litigatioon not by choice, but by aa department's unbending sternnness. Having survived the firstt ordeal to secure his rightful ppromotion, he was met with aa second, colder wall by denial of monetary benefits through aa mechanical application of thhe 'No Work, No Pay' doctrinee When the State, a model emmployer obstructs the very workk the employee is eager to perfrform, it cannot later plead thee employee's 'absence' as a sshield against paying his duee wages. To do so is to allow thhe employer to 'take advantagee of its own wrong' and to makee an employee walk through thee fire of two rounds of litiga tion just to reach his rightfull position is a travesty that our constitutional consciencee cannot condone. NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.02 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5771-2024 ((O&M) - 12 - Conclusion 27. In view of the above discuussion, this Court holds that thee petitioners were wrongly dennied promotion due to the faultt of the respondent-departmen t, and thus, the principle of "noo work no pay" is not applicabble to the facts of the presentt case. The petitioners are entittled to actual monetary benefitss from the date their juniors wwere promoted, ie. 20.01.2017. The impugned order dated 28.10.2024 (Annexure P-7) iss illegal, arbitrary, and is herebyy set aside.

28. The respondents are direccted to release arrears of salaryy and all consequential benefitss to the petitioners on the postt of Assistant from 20.01.20177 to 26.05.2023 along with ann interest @ 6% per annum onn the arrears from 20.01.2017. This entire exercise be comppleted within a period of threee months from the date of recceipt of a certified copy of thiss order." 18. Ld. SState counsel is unable to dispu te or controvert the above saidd legal and factual position. Accordingly, the preseent writ petition is allowed andd the respondents are directed to grant arrears of pay to the petitioner fromm 12.08.2011 to 12 .02.2012 when junior of the pet itioner has been promoted; andd also the date fromm where petitioner was granted retrospective promotion, alongg with interest @ 66% per annum. 19. Pendding application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. ( NNIDHI GUPTA ) 27.08.2026 JUDGE Neelam Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / NNo Whether Reportable Yes / NNo NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.02 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

IN THE HIGGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARRYANA AT CHANDIGARH 211 CWP-5771--2024 (O&M) Date of Deecision:- 27.08.2026 Jaswant Sinngh … Petitioner Versus State of Haaryana and another ... Respondents CORAM: HONN'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTAA Present:- Mr. AArvind Seth, Advocate for thhe petitioner. Mr. HHarish Kumar Nain, DAG, Haryanna. ****** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Preseent Civil Writ Petition und er Articles 226/227 of thee Constitution of I ndia has been filed by the peetitioner for issuance of a writt nature of certiorrari to quash the following porrtion of the office order datedd 25.07.2014 "His pay as Assistant from the dee med date of promotion to thee actual date of proomotion, will be fixed notionall y and he will not be entitled too any arrear on t his account"; and issue a wriit of mandamus directing thee respondents to g rant the arrear of pay from 12.008.2011 to 12.02.2012 when thee juniors have beenn promoted alongwith interest @@ 18% per annum. NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.02 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5771-2024 ((O&M) - 2 - 1. Brieff facts of the case in chronol ogical order are as follows: –– 05.08.1976: Petittioner was appointed as a Cleerk-cum-Typist in the Haryanaa Minerals Limited (A State Government Undertaki ng) on 05.08.1976. 18.4.1977: The peetitioner was designated as Stenno-Typist w.e.f. 18.04.1977. 22.08.1987: The petitioner was promoted as Juunior Scale Stenographer w.e.f.. 22.08.1987.

06.09.1990: The ppetitioner was further promotedd as Assistant w.e.f. 06.09.1990. 25.01.2001: Vide order dated 25.01.2001, petitiioner was declared surplus andd retrenched from service. 21.06.2006: Vide Notification dated 21.06.2006 ((Annexure P-1), respondent No.. 1 had issued a Sccheme regarding re-employmennt of regular retrenched Groupp 'C' and Group 'D' employees of Boards/Corporatiions/Public Sector Undertakingss etc., who were reetrenched during the period 011.03.2000 to 01.03.2005 againstt the vacancy of dirrect recruitment. 08.02.2007: Purs uant to the above, name of thee petitioner was recommendedd for direct recruitment at the post of Clerk in Haryana Civil Secretariat,, Chandigarh. 14.2.2007: The ppetitioner joined in the Haryanna Civil Secretariat on post off Clerk. NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.02 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5771-2024 ((O&M) - 3 - 13.06.2011: Theppetitioner had then submitted reepresentation dated 13.06.20111 (Annexure P-2) foor grant of ACP grade. 12.08.2011: It is the case of the petitioner thaat junior of petitioner namely,, Ashok Kumar Vyaas was promoted at the post of AAssistant. 09.09.2011: Petittioner raised a grievance againsst promotion of his junior videe representation daated 09.09.2011 (Annexure P-3) .

31.03.2014: Petittioner retired from servic e after attaining age off superannuation i .e. 58 years vide order dated 20 .03.2014 (Annexure P-5). 25/28.07.2014: UUpon fixation of seniority, petitiooner was promoted as Assistantt w.e.f. 12.08.20111 i.e. the date on which, Sh. Ashook Kumar Vyas was promoted. 22.08.2014: Petittioner filed representation (Annnexure P-6) seeking fixation off pay from 12.08.22011 onwards and release the arrrear of pay from 12.08.2011 too 12.02.2012. 02.06.2016: Petittioner filed a CWP No. 13541 off 2016 before this Court seekingg honorarium in lieeu of pension and arrears upon rretrospective promotion. 19.12.2023: Vide order dated 19.12.2023(Annexxure P-8), the said writ Petitionn was disposed of aas having been not pressed with liberty to file afresh. 06/07.03.2024: AAs petitioner was not granted ar rear of pay w.e.f. 12.08.2011 tilll 12.02.2012, hencce the present writ petition. NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.02 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5771-2024 ((O&M) - 4 -

2. Ld. CCounsel for the petitioner inter aalia submits that the proceduree as prescribed in the Notification dated 21.6.22006 (Annexure P-1) regardingg seniority of age hhas not been followed in letter and spirit; and vide Memo. No.. 23/23/2005-2GSI II dated 13.10.2006, name of tthe petitioner was deliberatelyy recommended aggainst the promotional post of AAssistant in HUDA. As such, thee name of the peti tioner was referred back with tthe remarks that the scheme iss regarding re-empployment against the vacancies of direct recruitment, whereass the names of juniiors of the petitioner were recommmended against the vacanciess of direct recruitmment to the post of UDC and CClerk/Meter Reader in the payy scale of Rs. 4625 -7000 and Rs. 4000-6000/- resppectively in UHBVN/DHBVN andd they joined their duties in October 2006.

3. Therreafter, the name of the petiti oner was again recommendedd vide Memo. No. 223/23/2005-2GSIII dated 8.2.20007 against the vacancy of directt recruitment to thhe post of Clerk in Haryana Civi l Secretariat, Chandigarh in thee pay scale of Rs. 33050-4950/- + Rs. 40/- as speciaal pay and the petitioner joinedd on the said post oon 14.2.2007, whereas the junioors have got higher pay scale i.e.. of Rs. 4625-70000 and Rs. 4000-6000/- respectiveely. Ld. Counsel points out thatt Sh. Ashok Kumar Vyas who joined his duty in Occtober 2006 to the post of Clerkk in Haryana Civil Secretariat was about 10 year s junior from the petitioner inn Haryana Mineralss Limited and was also junior in aage. Yet, he was made senior too the petitioner in Haryana Civil Secretariat. Wheereas in the notification datedd 21.6.2006, it is mmentioned that senior in age wwill be the criteria for fixing thee NEELAM seniority.KUMARI In the ppresent case, petitioner is higheer in age than the other personn 2026.09.02 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5771-2024 ((O&M) - 5 - his basic pay was Rs. 8550/- but the basic pay of the petitioner was Rs.8300/-. Itt is urged that, therefore, the petitioner has to facee financial loss as well.

4. It is ffurther submitted that in the yeear 2011, when the junior of thee petitioner (Ashokk Kumar) was promoted as Assisstant, petitioner had submittedd his representatio n to respondent No. 1 on 09.09..2011 (Annexure P-3) and raisedd the grievance thaat as Ashok Kumar Vyas was junnior to the petitioner therefore,, petitioner may also be promoted to the post off Assistant from the date whenn his junior (Ashok Kumar Vyas) was promoted. 5. In thhe meantime, petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2014 onn attaining the agge of superannuation vide ooffice order dated 20.03.20144 (Annexure P-5). 6. Therreafter, vide order dated 28.007.2014 (Annexure P-7), uponn fixation of senior ity, petitioner was deemed to bee promoted as Assistant in PB-22 w.e.f. 12.08.20111, the date when his junior, Ashook Kumar Vyas, Clerk, had beenn promoted. 7. Howwever, although petitioner hadd been granted seniority, noo arrears or monettary benefits were granted to thhe petitioner from deemed datee of promotion. AAs such, petitioner had subbmitted representation datedd 22.08.2014 (Anneexure P-6) to respondent No. 11 with the prayer to fix his payy from 12.08.20111 onwards and release arrearrs of pay from 12.08.2011 too 12.02.2012. NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.02 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5771-2024 ((O&M) - 6 -

8. As nno action was taken upon the representation (Annexure P-6),, petitioner had appproached this Court by way off CWP No. 13541 of 2016, interr alia seeking the foollowing prayers:- “(i) A writ in the nature of cerrtiorari to quash the letter datedd 28.9.2015 (Annexure P-10) isssued by the Respondent No. II vide which payment of Earneed Leave to the petitioner hass been denied. (ii) A writ of mandamus dire cting the respondents to countt the past service of the petitionner rendered by him in Haryanaa Mineral Limited. (iii) A writ of mandamus direecting the respondents to grantt the arrear of pay from 12.8.20011 i.e. from the date when thee junior of the petitioner has been promoted, which is clearr from the order dated 28.7.20114 (Annexure P-6). (iv) A writ of mandamus direecting the respondents to grantt Balance Leave Encashment, GGratuity and medical allowancee @ Rs. 500/- per month whiich has not been given to thee petitioner from the date of his retirement with interest @@ 18% per annum. (v) A writ of mandamus direecting respondents to grant thee pension per month to the peti tioner for which he is entitled. vi) A writ of mandamus dire cting the respondents to grantt First ACP Grade to the petitiioner in respect of past servicee benefit in the parent departmeent.” NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.02 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5771-2024 ((O&M) - 7 -

9. It is pointed out that the said writ ppetition came to be disposed off by this Court videe order dated 19.12.2023 (Annexxure P-8). It is submitted that inn respect of the prrayer made by the petitioner f or grant of arrears of pay, thiss Court had specificcally observed as follows:-“4. The second grievance raaised by the petitioner is that hee has not been given the actuall arrears upon the retrospectivee promotion as ordered vide A nnexure P-6 dated 25.07.2014. He further submits that th ere is no challenge to orderr Annexure P-6 and the saaid order had already beenn implemented in its letter annd spirit and as per the orderr Annexure P-6 dated 25.07.20014, the arrears were not to bee given and the promotion wass to be given notionally withoutt any arrears. Hence, in the abbsence of any challenge to thee said order, no benefit of arreaars can be granted. 5. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for thee petitioner submitted that thee present prayer may kindly bee disposed of as having been not pressed at this stage withh liberty to agitate the same afresh by filing fresh petitionn challenging Annexure P-6. 6. Ordered accordingly.” 10. It is submitted that accordingly, peetitioner is entitled for grant off arrears w.e.f. 122.08.2011 to 12.02.2012. In su pport, ld. Counsel relies uponn judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rammesh Kumar v. Union of Indiaa (SC): Law Finder DDoc Id # 697228 2015 (3) SCT 7004. NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.02 11:01

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5771-2024 ((O&M) - 8 - 11. Accoordingly, prays that the presentt writ petition be allowed and prays to quash the following portion of the office order dated 25.07.20144 (Annexure P-7) "HHis pay as Assistant from the deeemed date of promotion to thee actual date of proomotion, will be fixed notionall y and he will not be entitled too any arrear on thiss account" and directions be issuued to the respondents to grantt the arrears of paay from 12.08.2011 to 12.02.20012 when the junior has beenn promoted alongwwith interest @ 18% per annum. 12. Per contra, ld. State counsel has opposed submissions of thee petitioner and c ontended that the petitioner had retired in the year 2014;; whereas the present writ petition has been fil ed only in the year 2024. It iss contended that therefore, the present writ peetition is barred by delay andd laches. 13. Ld. SState counsel further submits thaat petitioner has not worked onn the post of Assisttant. As such, on the principle off 'No Work No Pay', petitioner iss not entitled to anny arrears on this account. 14. No oother argument is made on be half of learned counsel for thee parties. I have heeard ld. counsel and perused thee case file and record in detail. II find no merit inn the submissions advanced o n behalf of the learned Statee counsel.

15. The entitlement of the petitioner for promotion from date hiss junior was prom oted, is not disputed by the leearned State Counsel. The onlyy NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.02 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5771-2024 ((O&M) - 9 - ground on whicch claim of the petitioner is opposed is delay. However,, admittedly, uponn his retrospective promotion as ordered vide Annexure P-77 dated 28.07.201 4, petitioner had firstly apprroached the Department videe representation dated 22.08.2014 (Annexure P-66) seeking fixation of pay fromm 12.08.2011. As noo action was taken upon the sadd representation, petitioner hadd then approached this Court by way of CWP No. 13541 of 2016 and had soughtt arrears of pay. Ass noted above, the said prayer o f the petitioner was disposed off by this Court videe order dated 19.12.2023 (Anneexure P-8), as having been "nott pressed at this sstage with liberty to agitate thhe same afresh by filing freshh petition challeng ing....". Soon thereafter, petitiooner has filed the instant writt petition. Hence, iit cannot be said that claim of t he petitioner is barred by delayy and laches.

16. As reegards contention of the learneed State counsel that petitionerr is not entitled to arrears of pay in view of principple of 'No Work No Pay', there iss no merit in the said argument as well. It is esttablished from the facts notedd above that the peetitioner was illegally denied prromotion while his juniors weree promoted. Deniaal of promotion to the petitio ner is also in violation of thee Instructions/P-1. Accordingly, the respondents haad subsequently corrected theirr mistake vide order dated 28.07.2014 (Annexuree P-7) granting deemed date off promotion with eeffect from 12.08.2011. This cl early shows that there was noo fault of the petitiioner and thus, denying arrearss of pay for that period is illegall and has caused uundue hardship and loss to the ppetitioner. Ld. State counsel hass NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.02 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5771-2024 ((O&M) - 10 - been unable to distinguish the judgmentin Rameesh Kumar supra relied upon byy the petitioner, whherein it has been held that:

“13. We are conscious that e ven in the absence of statutoryy provision, normal rule is "noo work no pay". In appropriatee cases, a court of law may taake into account all the facts inn their entirety and pass an apppropriate order in consonancee with law. The principle of "nno work no pay" would not bee attracted where the responndents were in fault in nott considering the case of the apppellant for promotion and nott allowing the appellant to w ork on a post of NaibSubedarr carrying higher pay scale. Inn the facts of the present casee when the appellant was grantted promotion w.e.f. 01.01.20000 with the ante-dated seniiority from 01.08.1997 andd maintaining his seniority alonngwith his batchmates, it wouldd be unjust to deny him higher pay and allowances in thee promotional position of NaibSSubedar.” 14. The impugned orders passsed by the High Court are sett aside and this appeal is alllowed. The respondents shalll release the arrears of pay andd allowances to the appellant forr the period from 01.08.19977 till the date of his actuall promotion that is 13.11.2000 in the promotional post of Naibb Subedar within eight weekss from today. No order as too costs." (Emphasis added) 17. Simillar view has been taken by thhis Court in Harvinder Kaur vss State of Haryanna (P & H) Law Finder Doc 1DD# 2860285 2026 (1) SLJ 2077 wherein it has be en held as under:- NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.02 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5771-2024 ((O&M) - 11 -

"24. Thus, the denial of benefifit to the petitioners lies ill in thee mouth of the respondent-deepartment, for it is an all tooo familiar argument with the exploiting class and a welfaree State committed to a socialis tic pattern of society cannot bee permitted to advance such arggument. 25. The court is of the opinionn that since the petitioners weree deprived of promotion due to an illegal act of the respondentt department and was later ppromoted retrospectively afterr correction of the illegality, dennial of actual monetary benefitss would amount to perpetuatiing the original wrong. Equity, fairness, and settled service jjurisprudence demand that thee petitioner be placed, as far ass possible, in the same positionn in which he would have been but for the illegal action of thee department.

26. It is a sad paradox that aa civil servant, who should be aa partner in the State's missionn of service, was forced into aa multiple rounds of litigatioon not by choice, but by aa department's unbending sternnness. Having survived the firstt ordeal to secure his rightful ppromotion, he was met with aa second, colder wall by denial of monetary benefits through aa mechanical application of thhe 'No Work, No Pay' doctrinee When the State, a model emmployer obstructs the very workk the employee is eager to perfrform, it cannot later plead thee employee's 'absence' as a sshield against paying his duee wages. To do so is to allow thhe employer to 'take advantagee of its own wrong' and to makee an employee walk through thee fire of two rounds of litiga tion just to reach his rightfull position is a travesty that our constitutional consciencee cannot condone. NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.02 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5771-2024 ((O&M) - 12 - Conclusion 27. In view of the above discuussion, this Court holds that thee petitioners were wrongly dennied promotion due to the faultt of the respondent-departmen t, and thus, the principle of "noo work no pay" is not applicabble to the facts of the presentt case. The petitioners are entittled to actual monetary benefitss from the date their juniors wwere promoted, ie. 20.01.2017. The impugned order dated 28.10.2024 (Annexure P-7) iss illegal, arbitrary, and is herebyy set aside.

28. The respondents are direccted to release arrears of salaryy and all consequential benefitss to the petitioners on the postt of Assistant from 20.01.20177 to 26.05.2023 along with ann interest @ 6% per annum onn the arrears from 20.01.2017. This entire exercise be comppleted within a period of threee months from the date of recceipt of a certified copy of thiss order." 18. Ld. SState counsel is unable to dispu te or controvert the above saidd legal and factual position. Accordingly, the preseent writ petition is allowed andd the respondents are directed to grant arrears of pay to the petitioner fromm 12.08.2011 to 12 .02.2012 when junior of the pet itioner has been promoted; andd also the date fromm where petitioner was granted retrospective promotion, alongg with interest @ 66% per annum. 19. Pendding application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. ( NNIDHI GUPTA ) 27.08.2026 JUDGE Neelam Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / NNo Whether Reportable Yes / NNo NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.02 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document