SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Doraiswamy Raju, D.M. Dharmadhikari, JJ.
State of Haryana and another - Appellants
Versus
S.K. Khosla and others - Respondent
Civil Appeals Nos. 5093-94 of 1997
Decided On : 16-04-2003
retrospective promotion - entitlement to monetary benefits - court quashed Condition 8 giving notional retrospective promotion and held individuals entitled to monetary benefits, but Supreme Court applied 'no work, no pay' principle and set aside High Court's decision
Fact of the Case:
The appeals were filed against the High Court's judgment quashing Condition 8 giving notional retrospective promotion and granting monetary benefits to individuals who acquired AMIE qualification after being in service.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision and dismissed the writ petitions, applying the 'no work, no pay' principle.
Issues: Entitlement to monetary benefits for notional promotions, applicability of 'no work, no pay' principle
Ratio Decidendi: The principle of 'no work, no pay' applies when individuals had never worked during the period of notional promotion.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's orders, and dismissed the writ petitions.
ORDER :
Doraiswamy Raju, J.
The above appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 27-2-1996 and 9-5-1994 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWPs Nos. 14361 of 1993 and 3784 of 1994 respectively whereunder the Division Bench while quashing Condition 8 incorporated in the order dated 30-11-1992 giving notional retrospective promotion to a number of persons simultaneously on the basis of certain court orders declaring the procedure and principle relating to the method of promotion in respect of those who were already in service, but subsequently acquired AMIE qualification, further held them to be entitled to the monetary benefits also on the basis of such notional promotions. Though the sole respondent in each of the above appeals has been duly served with the notice, the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 5094 of 1997 above chose to enter appearance through counsel and in the other appeal the sole respondent has chosen not to contest the appeal either in person or by engaging any counsel.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. He brought to our notice a decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. O.P. Gupta, (1996) 7 SCC 533 : (1996) 33 ATC 324, whereunder in respect of an identical matter arising out of similar proceedings of even date this Court while setting aside the decision of the High Court allowed the appeal at the instance of the State and held that in the circumstances noticed in that case which are identical as well in the cases before us, the question of payment of arrears of salary with retrospective effect from the notional dates does not arise since, indisputably the respondents had never worked during that period in the promotional post, the settled principle in such cases being, "no work, no pay". The said principle applies with equal force to the cases before us too. Applying the ratio of the said decision these appeals are also allowed and the orders of the High Court are set aside and the writ petitions before the High Court shall stand dismissed.
No costs.
Appeals allowed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.