- (1.) Facts leading to the filing of the present Intra Court Appeal questioning the correctness of the judgment dated 18.04.2012 rendered by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by the appellant are not in dispute, which are in narrow campus as well. Therefore, we would like to take note of those facts in the first instance which would reveal the controversy involved as well. The appellant herein, at the relevant time, was District Employment Officer, when his turn for promotion to the post of Divisional Employment Officer matured. However, at that time he was facing certain disciplinary proceedings for which some charge-sheets were issued to him. For this reason, the appellant was not promoted to the said post while his juniors were promoted as Divisional Employment Officer on 05.07.1994. In the order dated 05.07.1994, promoting his junior Shri D.N.Arya, it was mentioned that the promotion of said Shri Arya was subject to the final decision in the disciplinary proceedings pending against the appellant. It was also stated that in case the appellant is found fit for promotion after the decision of the disciplinary proceedings and his representation against the adverse remarks, he would rank senior to Shri D.N.Arya. In a similar manner, promotion of S/Shri H.S.Dull and M.P.Siwach was made subject to final decision in the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant and some other officers. One post of Divisional Employment Officer was also kept reserved for the appellant in view of Court orders in Civil Suit which was filed by the appellant.
(2.) According to the appellant, two charge-sheets were pending at that time. As the enquiry Proceedings in both the charge-sheets were considerably prolonged, the competent authority 'for this reason' decided to drop the charge-sheets in the years 2002 and 2005.
(3.) In the absence of any other disciplinary proceedings at the relevant time, the case of the appellant was considered for promotion to the post of Divisional Employment Officer w.e.f. 5.7.1994 and as Deputy Director (Employment) w.e.f. 01.02.2006 i.e. from the date his juniors were promoted to the aforesaid post. He was given promotion to both these posts from the respective dates. However, the benefit of only notional promotion was granted to the appellant and his pay was also fixed accordingly but no monetary benefits were accorded to him on the principle of 'no work no pay'. According to the appellant, he was entitled to the arrears of pay as well of promotion to the aforesaid post which could not have been denied to him inasmuch as the departmental proceedings pending against him had resulted in no penalty as those proceedings were dropped. He, thus, challenged the action of the respondents in not granting the actual pay from the date of promotion(s) to the post of Divisional Employment Officer and Deputy Director (Employment).;