- (1.) The learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 15.4.2009 has declined the prayer of the appellant for payment of enhanced salary for the period from 12.3.1982 to 7.11.1995 on the rationale that he did not ever work on the promotional post in respect of that period nor he opted for promotion in response to the letter of the respondents. Such an option was offered when the cadre of Accounts Officer was provincialised but the appellant declined to opt for the same. The operative part of the judgment declining the prayer made by the appellant reads as under: " Now the dispute is only with regard to the payment of enhanced salary for the period from 12.3.1982 to 7.11.1995. It is admitted fact that during the said period, the petitioner did not work on the promotional post. It is also the admitted position that when services of the Accounts Officer were provincialised, the petitioner did not opt for provincialised services. Rather, he declined to opt for the same. The writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the promotion of Shri K.P. Gosain has also been dismissed by this Court. However, during the pendency of that petition, the State Government accepted the prayer of the petitioner for his absorption in the provincialised cadre and he was also given promotion as Deputy Controller (Finance & Accounts) from the date Shri K.P. Gosain was promoted. The petitioner has retired from service. He has been given all the retiral benefits, except for the enhanced salary for the aforesaid period. In my opinion, the petitioner is not entitled for the salary of the promotional post for the said period. He was not taken in the provincialised cadre, because he himself had declined to opt for the same. It was the fault of the petitioner, for which he cannot blame others. If subsequently in the year 2001, the Government had accepted his request and absorbed him in the provincialised cadre, he is not entitled for the salary for the aforesaid period on the promotional post, because he has not worked on the promotional post for the said period. The denial of promotion to him was not due to an illegal act of the department, but he himself had not opted for the provincialised cadre. Thus, in my opinion, the respondents have rightly declined the claim of the petitioner for salary on the post of Deputy Controller (Finance & Accounts) for the period from 12.3.1982 to 7.11.1995 on the principle of 'No work no pay'.
(2.) It is appropriate to mention that the appellant was initially appointed as Accountant in the office of Improvement Trust, Amritsar on 12.6.1973. In the year 1982, the services of the cadre of Accounts Officer was provincialised and options were solicited from all such employees including the appellant. One Shri K.P. Gosain, who was junior to the appellant opted for provincialised service whereas the appellant expressly declined to opt. Shri K.P. Gosain was promoted as Accounts Officer and then to the post of Deputy Controller (Finance and Accounts). The appellant challenged his promotion order by filing CWP No. 466 of 1984 on the ground that Shri K.P. Gosain was junior to him. The writ petition was, however, dismissed by this Court on 9.10.2002 (R-1). However, during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the Government vide order dated 17.8.2001 (P-1) conceded to the request made by the appellant for his absorption in the provincialised cadre and especially in view of the fact that he was senior to Shri K.P. Gosain. Accordingly, the appellant was also promoted as Deputy Controller (Finance and Accounts) with all consequential benefits from the date when Shri K.P. Gosain was promoted as such.
(3.) It has come on record that the appellant was promoted on the post of Accounts Officer in the year 1984 and to the post of Deputy Controller (Finance and Accounts) in the year 1995. He has also been paid salary for the promotional post of Deputy Controller from 7.11.1995. However, his claim is for payment of enhanced salary for the period commencing from 12.3.1982 to 7.11.1995 when he did not work on the promotional post. The aforesaid claim of the appellant has been declined by the learned Single Judge citing the reason that the principle of 'no work no pay' would apply because the appellant did not work on the post of Deputy Controller (Finance and Accounts) for that period. The denial of promotion was not due to any illegal act on the part of the department but the appellant had not opted for the provincialised cadre.;