Back
2007 Supreme(P&H) 2188
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Adarsh Kumar Goel and Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia JJ.
Prem Kumar Chauhan
Versus
Punjab State Electricity Board
CWP No. 18979 of 2007,
Decided On : DECEMBER 17, 2007
Mere retrospective promotion or revision of seniority does not automatically require consequential benefits to be given, and the entitlement to such benefits depends on the specific circumstances and rules.
Headnote:
Consequential Benefits - Denial of Arrears - IPC, 406/409/120-B - RSJ 329, 4 SCC 109, 1994 Supp.(2) SCC 222, AIR 1991 SC 958, AIR 1990 SC 166, AIR 1996 SC 2936, 2007) 6 SCC 524 - The court discussed the denial of arrears to the petitioner in the context of retrospective promotion and revision of seniority, citing various judgments and legal provisions. It highlighted that mere retrospective promotion or revision of seniority does not automatically require consequential benefits to be given, and that the entitlement to such benefits depends on the specific circumstances and rules.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of orders denying arrears from specific dates, based on his promotions and revisions of seniority. The petitioner's claim was based on the implementation of a decretal decree and various proceedings pending against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the petitioner's claim, highlighting that denial of consequential benefits to the petitioner was not arbitrary, considering the circumstances of the case and the applicable legal principles.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's entitlement to arrears based on retrospective promotion and revision of seniority, and the application of relevant legal provisions and judgments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that mere retrospective promotion or revision of seniority does not automatically require consequential benefits to be given, and cited various judgments to support its finding.
Final Decision: The petition seeking quashing of orders denying arrears was dismissed by the court.
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.
1. This petition seeks a direction for quashing a part of order dated 5.5.2006, Annexure P-7, to the extent of denial of arrears from 1.7.1988 to 3.5.1992 and for quashing order dated 15.9.2006, Annexure P- 9, to the extent of denial of arrears prior to the date of actual joining/officiating on the higher post.
2. Case of the petitioner is that he joined as Assistant Store Keeper. He was promoted as Store Keeper and then as Head Store Keeper and then as Stock Verifier. He filed a suit for declaration that order dated 4.12.1981, promoting his junior as Head Store Keeper, was not justified. The suit was decreed. As a result of the said decree, seniority list was revised on 8.9.1992. The petitioner was convicted in FIR No. 685 under Sections 406/409/120-B IPC, but the conviction was set-aside on appeal. He was also given a chargesheet and was retired from service on 24.3.1999. He got his pension and disciplinary case was quashed by the department on 2.11.2004. He was allowed leave encashment and suspension period was also regularized. DCRC was also released. Adverse remark of "integrity doubtful was also expunged. He was given the benefit of advance promotional increment on completion of 23 years of service. On 5.5.2006, he was given promotion from a back date without arrears and on 26.5.2006, his seniority was revised without monetary benefits.
3. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that promotion having been given from back date and seniority also having been revised from back date, the petitioner was entitled to consequential benefits. Reliance has been placed on judgment of this Court in Hamesh Mahajan v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. and others 2004(2) RSJ 329.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
We do not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner.
It is well-settled that mere retrospective promotion or revision of seniority from back date does not ipso facto require consequential benefits to be given. There may be varying situations where arrears may not be given. It also depends on rules.
In Union of India v. K.V. Janakiranam (1991) 4 SCC 109, it was held that where an employee is completely exonerated and gets promotion under a sealed cover procedure, he was entitled to consequential benefits of promotion. However, in Telecommunication Engineering Services Association and (India) another v. Union of India and another 1994 Supp.(2) SCC 222, the said judgment was distinguished and it was held that where due date of promotion on revision of seniority was given as a result of decision of Court and notional promotion was given with retrospective effect, consequential benefits did not automatically follow. In Varinder Kumar & ors. v. Avinash Chandra Chadha & ors. AIR 1991 SC 958, it was held that where promotion is given on the basis of quota and rota rule and a date of deemed appointment is given from retrospective effect, consequential benefits did not follow. In Paluru Ramkrishnaiah and others v. Union of India and another AIR 1990 SC 166, it was held that when an employee did not work on promotional basis, he could not claim consequential benefits on getting retrospective date of promotion. The same view was taken by the Honble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. O.P. Gupta etc. AIR 1996 SC 2936 to the following effect :-
"6. This Court in Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India, (1989) 2 SCR 92 at page 109 : (AIR 1990 SC 166 at p.195), considered the direction issued by the High Court and upheld that there has to be "no pay for no work", i.e., a person will not be entitled to any pay and allowance during the period for which he did not perform the duties of higher post, although after due consideration, he was given a proper place in the gradation list having been deemed to be promoted to the higher post with effect from the date his junior was promoted. He will be entitled only to step up the scale of pay retrospectively from the deemed date but
