Retrospective monetary benefits upon promotion are not governed by a hard and fast rule. While 'no work no pay' is generally considered, it is not a rule of thumb and can be relaxed case-by-case, especially where administration wrongly denied a due promotion.

JUDGMENT:

A.K. Mathur, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This appeal has been filed against the order dated 28.11.2002 passed by the Division Bench of Kerala High Court whereby the Division Bench of the High Court has granted limited relief to the writ-petitioner (respondent herein) by which he was given the benefit of arrears of salary on the date of his filing the application, i.e., 15.6.1972 and not with effect from 15.9.1961 as prayed by him. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the writ-petitioner joined the service on 25.2.1957 and while working as First Grade Draftsman his juniors were promoted and the petitioner was not He filed a representation dated 15.6.1972 calling upon the Government to give him all the benefits of promotion which were given to his juniors. His representation was not considered. Therefore, he filed O.P. No. 585 of 1975 and the High Court by order dated 12.8.1977 directed the Government to consider the representation of the petitioner with reference to any policy decision and on the merits of the representation made by the petitioner. The Government considered the representation of the petitioner sympathetically and directed that the petitioner be granted promotion with effect from 15.9.1961. By order dated 4.1.1979 the petitioner was actually promoted and he joined the promotional post on 11.5.1979 and retired from service on 31.7.1980. Thereafter, he made an application that he may be given all benefits of promotional post with effect from 15.9.1961. The monetary benefits were not given to the petitioner. Lots of correspondence transpired in between and ultimately Government by order, Ext.P5 directed that the petitioner would be entitled to monetary benefits only for the period i.e., 11.5.1979 till 31.7.1980 during which period he actually worked on the promotional post. It was also clarified that he would be entitled to all benefits from 15.9.1961 except the monetary benefits. The petitioner made further representation but without any result. Therefore, he again filed a writ petition and the learned Single Judge held that the petitioner was not entitled to get any monetary benefits from 15.9.1961 to 10.5.1979. But it was directed that pensionary benefits would be paid to the petitioner as if he had worked as Assistant Engineer from 15.9.1961 i.e., from the date he was promoted. Thereafter, a review petition was filed. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 3.12.1997 in R.P. No.331 of 1997 held that the petitioner was entitled to his salary for the period from 15.6.1972 till 11.5.1979. However, it was made clear that no interest would be paid. Then again, the petitioner filed a Writ Appeal which came to be registered as W.A. 1560 of 1998 for the monetary benefits from 15.9.1961. The State also preferred a Writ Appeal which came to be registered as W.A. 1451 of 1998. The State claimed that the review was not justified. Both the appeals were taken together. However, question of review order passed by the Court was not interfered with and the Writ Appeal filed by the State challenging the review order passed by the learned Single Judge was dismissed. However, the Division Bench examined the question of grant of monetary benefits to the petitioner on his retrospective promotion from 15.9.1961. The Division Bench referred to various decisions of this Court as well as the judgment of the Kerala High Court. After going through all case laws on the subject, the High Court directed that the petitioner would be entitled to higher pay on account of retrospective promotion with effect from 15.6.1972 when he filed O.P. 585 of 1975 but declined to grant any benefit from 15.9.1961. Ultimately the Court passed the order that the petitioner should be paid all the monetary benefits with effect from 15.6.1972 within 90 days failing which the petitioner was entitled to interest @ 9 per cent on the date on which such amount was due. Aggrieved against this order, dated 28.11.2002, the Sta