Mohinder Singh vs State of Haryana and others

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The two substantial prayers, in this writ petition, are for payment of salary

for the period from 1.6.2010 to 15.7.2010 (45 days). The claim arises out of the fact that under the policy of the Haryana Government, the

petitioner who was a DSP was granted extension in service on account of winning a police medal which entitled the petitioner to extension of

service beyond the normal age of retirement on reaching the age of superannuation.

The second claim is for the grant of one advance increment as per policy dated 21.10.2004 (P-2) which entitles Government servant of one

advance increment on promotion. The petitioner was promoted as DSP albeit in relaxation of experience as provided in the rules. The case of the

petitioner is that 16 other police officials have been granted one advance increment on promotion on the same principle that was applied to the

case of the petitioner by relaxing the experience. The petitioner claims one advance increment not only on the strength of the circular but also on

the principle of parity with similarly situated employees..

In the written statement filed by the State, it has been stated that circular dated 21.10.2004 was withdrawn vide instructions issued on

31.5.2010 (R-1). However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim for one advance increment is anterior to the new

instructions and the case would be covered by the old instructions dated 21.10.2004 which may have been repealed and replaced in May, 2010.

To refute the claim for salary for the period of 45 days, Mr. Nehra submits that it should be denied to the petitioner for the reason that he had not

discharged duties during the aforesaid period by applying the principles of No Work, No Pay. Mr. Nehra, however, misses the point that the

principle of No Work, No Pay would not apply in a case where the Government itself is at fault in not adhering to its policy on extension for the

reason of awarding of police medal justifying extension. Failure to adhere to the instructions which grants extension is not the fault of the petitioner

and, therefore, he could not be denied salary for the period although he had not worked.

Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.7.2010 (P-13) is modified by issuing a writ of Certiorari that it would

read not with immediate effect but with retroactive effect from 1.6.2010. A mandamus is issued to the respondents to grant one advance increment

to the petitioner as per policy dated 21.10.2004 and the monetary benefits accruing from this order be handed over to him within two months after

the receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petition stands allowed in the above terms.