Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
HEMANT GUPTA and NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, JJ.
The State of Bihar – Appellant
Versus
Dr. Shafique Azam – Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal No.1671 of 2012 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9938 of 2011
Decided on : 02-03-2016
Notional Promotion - Financial Benefits - The court upheld the entitlement of the writ petitioner for promotion as Reader and Professor on the dates from which he was granted notional promotion, stating that all financial benefits will accrue to him once entitled to be promoted and notionally promoted.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged an order granting financial benefits to the respondent for notional promotion to the posts of Reader and Professor, arguing that the respondent was not entitled to salary from the date of notional promotion.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the appellant's argument, stating that the respondent was entitled to financial benefits from the dates of notional promotion, as the inaction of the State prevented the respondent from discharging higher duties and responsibilities.
Issues: The issue was whether the respondent was entitled to financial benefits from the dates of notional promotion to the posts of Reader and Professor.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once a candidate is entitled to be promoted and has been notionally promoted, all financial benefits will accrue to him, and the principle of 'no work no pay' does not apply when the inaction of the State prevented the employee from discharging higher duties and responsibilities.
Final Decision: The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed, upholding the respondent's entitlement to financial benefits from the dates of notional promotion.
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent.
2. The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to an order dated 21st of February, 2012 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9938 of 2011, whereby the respondent, the writ petitioner, was ordered to be granted financial benefits of the post of Reader with effect from 26th of July, 1996 and of the post of Professor with effect from 26th of July, 2001 i.e. from the day he was notionally promoted to such posts.
3. The sole argument raised by the appellant is that there was no junior promoted in the year 1996 or in the year 2001 which could confer a right on him to seek promotion from the aforesaid dates. Since the promotion is notional, he is not entitled to salary from the date he was notionally promoted but is entitled to salary from the date he actually started working against the promotional post.
4. We do not find any merit in the said argument. The fact is that the respondent stands promoted, though notionally, on the post of Reader with effect from 26th of July, 1996 and thereafter as Professor with effect from 26th of July, 2001. Therefore, the appellant admits the genuineness and entitlement of the claim of the writ petitioner for promotion as Reader and Professor on the dates from which he was granted notional promotion. Once a candidate is entitled to be promoted and has been notionally promoted, the natural consequence will be that all financial benefits will accrue to him. The argument that he is not entitled to salary on the principle of ‘no work no pay’ is not applicable for the reason that it was the inaction of the State which prevented the writ-petitioner from discharging higher duties and responsibilities. For such inaction of the State, an employee cannot be deprived of his right of promotion, more so, when the same has been recognized.
5. In view of the said fact, we do not find any merit in the present Letters Patent Appeal. The same is, thus, dismissed.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
