The court emphasized that the denial of arrears of pay and notional promotion must be based on valid reasons and compliance with court orders is mandatory.

JUDGMENT

Yashwant Varma, J. - This petition impugns the orders dated 14th June, 2011 and 12th April, 2012. By the first order, the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Divisional Manager has come to be cancelled on account of his alleged failure to join on the promoted post. The order of 12th April, 2012 disposes of an appeal which was made by the petitioner relating to various service benefits as well as his prayer for being granted notional promotion to the post of Administrative Officer and Assistant Divisional Manager.

2. It becomes pertinent to recall that the petitioner was subjected to a disciplinary enquiry with respect to certain acts of misconduct alleged to have been committed. On culmination of that enquiry the Disciplinary Authority passed the penalty of bringing him down in the pay scale by three steps. The aforesaid order was assailed by the petitioner by way of Writ Petition No. 3009/1998. That petition came to be allowed on 12th April, 2010 with the following operative directions:-

"27. The petition therefore succeeds. The order of the Disciplinary Authority as well as of the Appellate Authority of the respondent LIC is set aside and quashed. The respondent LIC is directed to within six weeks hereof release to the petitioner all benefits of which the petitioner has been deprived owing to the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority the order whereof has been quashed. The petitioner is also awarded costs of Rs.10,000/- of these proceedings."

3. Undisputedly the aforesaid judgment attained finality consequent to the dismissal of the appeal that was taken by the respondent Corporation. As is manifest from the operative directions which were framed by the learned Judge, the order of punishment came to be quashed and the respondent Corporation was directed to release to the petitioner all benefits of which he had been deprived owing to the imposition of penalty by the Disciplinary Authority. Since according to the petitioner the aforesaid judgement was not complied with, he was constrained to institute proceedings in contempt, which came to be registered as Contempt Case (C) 608/2010. That petition was ultimately disposed of by a learned Judge on 16th March, 2012. Having noticed the disputes which were raised and the claims which according to the petitioner flowing from the judgment of the Court had not been provided, the learned Judge in the contempt proceedings recorded the following insofar as his claim for arrears of salary is concerned:-

"So far as the petitioners grievance with regard to the non-payment of arrears on account of the petitioners back dated promotion to the post of AAO on 31.08.1995 and to the post of AO on 30.04.2003 is concerned, the same appears to be justified. The Court had directed the respondent LIC to release to the petitioner within six weeks, all benefits of which the petitioner had been deprived and the penalty imposed by the disciplinary committee had been quashed."

4. The aforesaid directions were entered in light of the grievance of the petitioner that although he had been granted notional promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer w.e.f 31st August, 1995 and to the post of Administrative Officer w.e.f 30th April, 2003, the arrears of pay and other emoluments had not been released. It was in the aforesaid backdrop that the learned Judge directed the respondent Corporation to release those arrears within a period of six weeks. The learned Judge further observed that the difference of pay between the posts to which the petitioner was ultimately promoted, albeit on a notional basis, could not be denied on the specious ground of the petitioner having not served on those posts. The learned Judge took note of the fact that the disability of the petitioner to actually serve and discharge duties attached to those posts was on account of the fact that the order of punishment operated then and it was thus on account of an act of the respondents themselves. Insof