LPA No. 299 of 2008

:1:

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh.

LPA No. 299 of 2008

Date of Decision: 15.04.2009

Haryana State Electricty Board

....Appellant.

Versus

Lal Chand

....Respondent.

Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uma Nath Singh

Present: Mr. B.S. Rana, Advocate

for the appellant.

...

J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral).

Respondent – Lal Chand approached this Court by filing Civil

Writ Petition No.1174 of 1988. Through the aforesaid writ petition, he

impugned the revised seniority list dated 17.3.1987 (Annexure P-3). Based

on the aforesaid challenge, respondent – Lal Chand also claimed

consequential benefits. It is not a matter of dispute, that in so far as the

issue of seniority is concerned, the challenge was as against respondents

No.3 to 8. Some of the aforestated respondents had been allowed promotion

to the next higher post of Deputy Superintendent with effect from 2.3.1988.

During the pendency of Civil Writ Petition No.1174 of 1988, the appellant

i.e. Haryana State Electricity Board unilaterally accepted the claim of

respondent – Lal Chand and placed him at a slot higher than the slot

assigned to respondents No.3 to 8, in furtherance of the judgement rendered

LPA No. 299 of 2008

:2:

by this court in Civil Writ Petition No.9342 of 1988, decided on 10.9.1992.

Faced with the aforesaid situation, the only issue which remained for

adjudication in the writ petition filed by Lal Chand (respondent herein) was

whether he was entitled to the consequential benefits of his retrospective

promotion ? Since Lal Chand was assigned a position higher in the

seniority list, he was also unilaterally granted promotion retrospectively

with effect from 2.3.1988 i.e. the date with effect from which respondents

No.3 to 8 had been allowed promotion as Deputy Superintendents. This

action was taken by the appellant by passing an order dated 9.8.2001

(appended to the instant appeal as Annexure A-1). The aforestated order

dated 9.8.2001 allowed respondent – Lal Chand wages against the post of

Deputy Superintendent with effect from 30.10.1990 i.e. the date with effect

from which he was allowed to discharge the duties of the post of Deputy

Superintendent. He had not been allowed wages of the post of Deputy

Superintendent with effect from the date of his notional promotion i.e.

2.3.1988.

The solitary grievance of the appellant in the present appeal is,

that respondent – Lal Chand has been granted salary in the pay scale of the

post of Deputy Superintendent with effect from 2.3.1988. This grievance is

based on the fact, that respondent – Lal Chand had failed to discharge the

duties of the post of Deputy Superintendent, and as such, should not be

granted wages for the aforesaid period under the principle of “No work, no

pay”.

It would be pertinent to mention, that the impugned order dated

23.5.2007, passed by this court while disposing of Civil Writ Petition

No.1174 of 1988, was in the first instance challenged by the appellant by

LPA No. 299 of 2008

:3:

filing a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court. Before

the Supreme Court, the appellant chose not to press the aforestated Petition

for Special Leave to Appeal on the plea, that the appellant desired to avail

of the intra-court remedy available to the appellant before this court. It is,

therefore, obvious that the appellant first approached the Supreme Court and

then reverted back to this court by filing the present Letters Patent Appeal.

During the course of hearing, while agitating the claim for

denial of wages to respondent – Lal Chand under the principle of “No work,

no pay”, learned counsel for the appellant has placed emphatic reliance on

three judgements rendered by the Supreme Court, namely, State of Haryana

and others Vs. O.P. Gupta and others, (1996)7 SCC 533, Union of India

and others