- (1.) PRAYER of the petitioner in the present petition is for issuance of direction to the respondent to release his arrears of pay and other consequential benefits arising out of order of promotion on the post of Superintendent Grade -II as the same have been restricted w.e.f. 11.12.2008, whereas, claim to the post for promotion was accepted. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Clerk on 20.03.1989 and thereafter, he was appointed as Steno Typist w.e.f. 16.07.1991. The petitioner was having lien on the post of Clerk. The claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant was not considered and thereafter, he filed CWP No.10326 of 1999 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 11.12.2008 with a direction to the Registrar to consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of observations made therein. Hence, the case of the petitioner was considered by the respondent and he was placed in grade of Senior Clerk w.e.f. 20.03.1994 and promoted as Senior Assistant w.e.f. 23.09.1997 and thereafter, Superintendent Grade II w.e.f. 07.05.2008 i.e the date from which his junior Permod Chander was placed in grade of Senior Clerk and his promotion to the post of Senior Assistant and Superintendent Grade II, respectively. The arrears of salary were not granted on the ground that he did not work against promoted post. The monetary benefits were restricted from the date of judgment i.e 11.12.2008. The petitioner made representation to the respondent for payment of arrears of salary by stating that he was ready and willing to work on the higher post and there was no default on his part.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was entitled for arrears also as his junior Permod Chander was promoted with all consequential benefits. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner was willing and available for working on the higher post and there was no default on his part in any manner at any stage and denial of arrears of pay is not only discriminatory but normal rule of 'no work no pay' is not applicable.
(3.) LEARNED counsel has also relied upon various judgments in cases Vidya Parkash Harnal vs State of Haryana, 1995 3 SCT 785, Sudesh Kumar vs Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited and another, 2006 3 SCT 262, Karnail Singh vs Punjab State Electricity Board and others, 2006 3 SCT 276, Sports Authority of India and another vs Central Administrative Tribunal and another (CWP No. 14998 of 2009, decided on 06.11.2009), Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and others (CWP No.14157 of 1994, decided on 18.08.2010), Gurdial Singh vs Ambala Central Cooperative Bank Limited and another, 2011 2 SCT 754and Housing Board vs S.B. Kumar, 2012 1 SCT 613(DB) in support of his contentions. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner is not entitled for arrears as he had not worked on the promoted post. The petitioner was granted monetary benefits from the date of judgment i.e 11.12.2008. The reason for not granting benefit was also conveyed to the petitioner.;