JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.

Prayer

1. The jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been invoked by way of present civil writ petition with a prayer to quash the impugned clause of order dated 04.09.2020 (Annexure P-7) and the order dated 12.11.2020 (Annexure P-8) whereby the arrears of pay and the pay fixation of notional promotion was denied to the petitioner, with a further prayer to direct the respondents to grant consequential monetary benefits of the deemed promotion granted to the petitioner for the post of sub-inspector as well as Inspector, Food and Supplies w.e.f 20.04.2012. and 17.06.2016 respectively.

Brief Facts

2. The petitioner initially joined the department on daily wage basis on 24.04.1987 as P.R. Chowkidar at Narwana, District Jind. His services were regularized w.e.f. 01.04.1993. Thereafter, he was promoted as Clerk w.e.f. 04.04.2011 (Annexure P-1) and further as Sub-Inspector w.e.f. 27.06.2014 (Annexure P-2).

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that certain officials, namely Satbir Singh and Jai Bhagwan, who were junior to him in service, were promoted to the posts of Sub-Inspector and Inspector prior to him. One Satbir Singh was promoted as Sub-Inspector w.e.f. 20.04.2012 and further as Inspector w.e.f. 16.07.2016.

4. The petitioner submitted representation dated 22.11.2017 (Annexure P-4) claiming promotion from the date his juniors were promoted along with consequential benefits. During the pendency of the writ proceedings, the respondents examined his claim and granted him deemed dates of promotion as Clerk w.e.f. 09.09.2008, as Sub-Inspector w.e.f. 20.04.2012, and as Inspector w.e.f. 17.06.2016 vide orders dated 04.09.2020 and 12.11.2020.

5. However, while granting such retrospective/deemed promotions, the respondents incorporated clauses denying arrears of pay for the retrospective period on the ground that the petitioner had not worked on the said posts. These clauses are under challenge in the present petition.

Contentions

On behalf of petitioner

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once the respondents themselves have accepted that the petitioner was entitled to promotion from the date his juniors were promoted, denial of consequential monetary benefits is arbitrary and discriminatory.

7. It is argued that the petitioner was always eligible and willing to discharge duties on the higher posts, but was prevented from doing so due to administrative error in considering his claim. Therefore, the principle of “no work no pay” cannot be invoked against him.

8. It is further submitted that juniors to the petitioner enjoyed higher pay and status for years together and denial of parity in monetary benefits violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

On behalf of the respondents

9. Learned State counsel submits that although the petitioner has been granted deemed promotions, he is not entitled to arrears for the retrospective period as he had not actually worked on the promotional posts. Reliance is placed upon the principle of “no work no pay.”

10. It is further submitted that the deemed promotions were granted only to rectify seniority and promotional position and do not automatically entitle the petitioner to arrears of pay.

Analysis

11. The core issue that arises for consideration is:

Whether an employee who has been granted retrospective/deemed promotion on account of wrongful denial of promotion earlier is entitled to actual monetary benefits from the date his junior was promoted?

12. It is not disputed that the respondents, upon examination of the petitioner’s representation, found him entitled to promotion from the dates his junior Satbir Singh was promoted. The grant of deemed dates of promotion is itself an acknowledgment that the petitioner was wrongly denied promotion earlier.

13. The delay in promotion is not attributable to any fault, misconduct, or disqualification on the part of the petitioner. Rather, it resulted from administrative overs