Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Ker) 1206

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ.
State of Kerala and Others - Appellants
Versus
V. Murugan - Respondent
W.A. Nos. 426, 444, 492 of 2011
Decided On : 19-05-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Vinitha B.
For the Respondent: G. Sasidharan Chempazhanthiyil

Promotion benefits under a 7-tier system require actual assumption of duties; retrospective promotions do not confer financial benefits without fulfilling this condition.

Headnote:
(A) Kerala High Court Act, 1958 - Section 5(i) - Promotion under 7-tier vs. 5-tier system - The court addressed whether respondents were entitled to pay and allowances under the 7-tier system or the revived 5-tier system. The learned Single Judge ruled in favor of the petitioners based on a prior Division Bench judgment. The State contended that the petitioners did not assume duties under the 7-tier system and thus were not entitled to financial benefits. The court found that the promotion was not implemented and the 5-tier system was revived, leading to the dismissal of the writ petitions. (Paras 2, 10, 19)

(B) Promotion and Financial Benefits - The principle of 'no work no pay' applies; retrospective promotions do not entitle employees to financial benefits unless they have assumed duties in the promotional post. (Paras 12, 14)

(C) Legal Precedents - The court distinguished previous judgments based on the specific circumstances of the case, emphasizing that the petitioners did not fulfill the requirements for entitlement to benefits under the 7-tier system. (Paras 18, 19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were promoted under the 7-tier system but claimed financial benefits that were not implemented due to the revival of the 5-tier system. The State argued that the petitioners did not assume duties under the 7-tier system.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the promotion under the 7-tier system was not implemented, and thus the petitioners were not entitled to the claimed benefits.

Issues: The main issues were whether the respondents were entitled to benefits under the 7-tier system and the applicability of previous judgments.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without assuming duties in the promoted post, the petitioners could not claim financial benefits, reaffirming the principle of 'no work no pay.'

Result: Writ appeals allowed, and the impugned judgment was set aside.

JUDGMENT :

MURALEE KRISHNA, J.

1. The issue involved in all these writ appeals is as to whether the respondents in these writ appeals are entitled to pay and allowances in their promotion posts, under the 7-tier system in view of the Government Order dated 20.06.1998 bearing No. G.O. (MS) No.46/98/PWD or under the 5-tier system which existed prior to the said order and was revived as per the Government Order dated 07.10.2003 bearing No. G.O (MS) No.54/03/PWD? Since the issue involved in all these writ appeals is the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, the parties are referred in this judgment in their status as they were in the writ petitions, unless otherwise stated.

2. All these writ appeals are filed by the State and its officials under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, against the common judgment of the learned Single Judge in the respective writ petitions, holding that the issue is fully covered in favour of the petitioners by virtue of the Division Bench judgmentin W.A. No.2503 of 2005 rendered on 11.01.2010. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petitions directing the respondents to disburse the monetary benefits and revised pensionary benefits to the petitioners on the basis they were promoted under the 7-tier system introduced in the Public Works Department (‘PWD’ in short). It was directed that the benefits shall be disbursed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of production of a copy of those judgments.

3. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.15633 of 2004 from which W.A. No. 426 of 2011 arose, joined service in PWD on 01.03.1973 as Junior Engineer. He was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer on 15.03.1985. With effect from 01.01.1996, he was promoted as Executive Engineer. He claims that the said promotion was in pursuance of restructuring of 5-tier system to 7-tier system. According to the petitioner, by Ext.P1 order dated 20.06.1998 bearing No. G.O.(MS)No.46/98/PWD produced in that writ petition he was promoted as Special Grade Assistant Executive Engineer and as Executive Engineer with effect from 01.01.1996. He retired on superannuation on 31.10.2001.However, his pay was not fixed to the scale applicable to the post of Executive Engineer. He was not considered for his next promotion as Special Grade Executive Engineer for the vacancy that arose prior to his retirement. Pointing out his grievance, the petitioner filed O.P. No. 31731 of 2001 before this Court which was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment dated 22.10.2001 with a specific direction to the 1^st respondent to pass appropriate orders granting him benefits of the promotion. However, the 1^st respondent declined to grant the benefits while deciding the matter as per Ext.P4 order dated 11.12.2003, claiming that the petitioner was already promoted and was continuing as Executive Engineer before the decision of the Government to withdraw the 7-tier system on 07.10.2003. Then the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.15633 of 2004 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a declaration that the non-inclusion of his name in the beneficiary list dated 07.10.2003 passed by the Government limiting the benefit of 7-tier system to 13 promotees alone and also a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to fix his pay scale as applicable to Executive Engineer, on 01.01.1996.

4. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3949 of 2004 from which W.A. No.444 of 2011 arose, entered the service as Assistant Engineer on 02.07.1973. He was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer on 18.04.1989. He was promoted as Executive Engineer with effect from 31.05.2000. He joined that post on the forenoon of 31.05.2000 and retired in the afternoon. Claiming his promotion also under the 7-tier system, the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.3949 of 2004 filed that writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the same relief as that claimed by the pet