G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the defendant -Board wherein it is aggrieved against the concurrent findings of the Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff for declaration to the effect that he is entitled for arrears of pay on the promotional post from the date he was given retrospective promotion was decreed. The facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed the suit that he was a regular employee of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") and posted as Mandi Supervisor, Nilokheri and had been given promotion as Arrival Recorder with effect from 1.4.1982 at par with the promotion which was allowed to his juniors vide order dated 18.1.2007 and he was also granted arrears of pay for 38 months prior to the date of his representation dated 1.8.2006 and therefore, he was allowed arrears with effect from 1.6.2008. It was also pleaded that he was allowed arrears of the pay of the promotional post of the Auction Recorder with effect from 22.6.1991 vide order dated 17.12.2007. Accordingly, it was pleaded that he was denied the arrears of the promotional post by overlooking to the prevailing practice followed by the Board in the cases of his juniors and the principle of "no work no pay" had wrongly been applied to him and also denied the benefit of special pay and accordingly, notice dated 5.11.2008 was served upon the Board and therefore, he filed a suit on 19.1.2009.
(2.) IN the written statement filed by the Board, preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction, maintainability, estoppel and lack of cause of action was taken. Retrospective promotion of the plaintiff -respondent was admitted and contended that in view of the instructions issued by Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana vide order dated 27.1.2006, the plaintiff was not entitled to the arrears of pay from the actual date of promotion because in case of notional promotion allowed from the deemed date, the concerned official was not entitled to payment of salary on the principle of "no work no pay". Accordingly, it was prayed that suit be dismissed with costs. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: - 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the jurisdiction of civil court to entertain and try the present suit is barred under the provisions of Section 42 of Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961? OPD 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4.WHETHER the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD 5.WHETHER the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD Whether the present suit is totally false, vexatious and the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts from the Court and has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD 6.RELIEF .
(3.) The plaintiff brought on record 32 documents (Ex. P 1 to Ex. P 32) while examining Ram Kumar as PW -1 and Raj Pal, SDC, HSAMB as PW -2. Defendant -Board also examined Raj Pal, SDC, HSAMB as DW -1. The trial Court noticed that on the representation dated 1.8.2006, the Board had paid the arrears with effect from 1.6.2003 and he was given notional benefits for the period with effect from 22.6.1991 onwards vide order dated 17.12.2007. He was given promotion with effect from 1.4.1982 as Arrival Recorder and accordingly, his next promotion to the post of Mandi Supervisor with effect from 7.10.2004 in view of order dated 8.3.2007. Accordingly, when once the defendant had chosen to give promotion to the plaintiff with effect from the date his juniors were promoted, there was no question of denying him the pay to the promotional post and thus, he was deemed to have worked for all intents and purposes on the higher post and is entitled to pay and wages. Accordingly, it was held that the principle of "no work no pay" would not attract to the facts of the present case as he was willing to work on the promotional post but he was kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his and, therefore, he could not be denied financial benefits which would flow from the retrospective promotion from the date he was given promotion.;