JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J.

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the prejudicial part “notional basis” and “No Work, No Pay” of the speaking orders dated 03.07.2024 (Annexure P-5) and 17.09.2024 (Annexure P-6). Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to release the actual benefits for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (JE) from 26.02.1991, Assistant Corporation Engineer (SDO) from 16.03.2001 and Corporation Engineer (XEN) from 27.07.2011 and grant arrears of salary on account of 4/9/14 years of ACP/Step-up, along with interest @18% per annum.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the petitioner served the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana and retired as Sub-Divisional Officer. Despite being senior to certain officers including Sh. R.P. Gupta and Sh. Rajinder Singh, the petitioner was ignored at the relevant time and his juniors were granted promotions to higher posts. Earlier, the petitioner had filed CWP-3545-2005 before this Court, challenging the seniority list, which was disposed of by this Court on 03.10.2023 (Annexure P-1) with a direction to the competent authority to consider his representation in light of the Division Bench judgment dated 02.05.1997 and the order dated 18.01.1999. Pursuant thereto, the respondents passed the speaking orders dated 03.07.2024 (Annexure P-5) and 17.09.2024 (Annexure P-6) whereby the petitioner was granted promotion from the dates his juniors were promoted, including promotion as Executive Engineer w.e.f. 27.07.2011, however the same was granted only on notional basis on the principle of “No work No pay.” Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that once the petitioner has been held entitled to promotion from the date his juniors were promoted, he cannot be deprived of consequential benefits including arrears of salary and other service benefits. He further contends that even the office note dated 23.12.2025 (Annexure P-9) issued by the office of the Additional Commissioner approves the grant of 4, 9 and 14 years of ACP benefits and revision of pension, thereby acknowledging the petitioner’s service benefits. However, despite such recognition, the arrears arising from the retrospective promotion have not been released to the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguments, has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Darshna Devi vs State of Punjab and others, 2024(5) SLR 731 and submits that when an employee is unjustly denied promotion due to fault of the employer, he must be granted arrears of salary and other benefits from the date of notional promotion. He has further relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Rameshwar vs State of Haryana and others, 2005 (4) SCT 618 and submits that if an employee is granted retrospective promotion, he is entitled to monetary benefits of the promotional post also from the same date. Any delay in initiating or considering a promotion case, is the responsibility of the competent authority, and such delay cannot be attributed to the employee. Therefore, if the employee was otherwise eligible and is later promoted with retrospective effect, then, denial of arrears of pay in the promotional pay scale would be unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality and equal treatment in service matters. Lastly, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in CWP-18030-2020, titled as Ravish Kumar vs State of Punjab and another, decided on 12.09.2025, wherein it has been held that where an employee is wrongly denied promotion due to fault of the employer, he is entitled to full consequential benefits including arrears of salary.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the petitioner has already been granted promo