Back
2010 Supreme(P&H) 2350
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Gian Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Civil Writ Petition No. 14157 of 1994,
Decided On : AUGUST 18, 2010
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the principle of 'no work no pay' is not absolute and can have exceptions, particularly when an employee is wrongly denied promotion for no fault of his own.
Headnote:
Promotion - Notional Promotion - Arrears of Pay - [Senior Assistant - Promotion - 10th August, 1992 - 19th March, 1982] - The court discussed the principle of 'no work no pay' and its exceptions for the grant of arrears, monetary, and consequential benefits in cases of notional promotion granted to an employee with retrospective effect. The court relied on various judgments to establish that the principle of 'no work no pay' is not absolute and can have exceptions when the employee is wrongly denied promotion for no fault of his own.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was wrongly denied promotion for more than ten years due to a mistake by the authorities in recording his date of joining, which led to his junior colleagues being promoted. After continuous correspondence and an Enquiry Officer's intervention, the petitioner was granted notional promotion retrospectively with effect from 19th March, 1982, but was denied arrears of pay and financial benefits from the date of his promotion.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner in the delay of his promotion and that the authorities had realized their mistake. It held that the petitioner was entitled to arrears of pay and financial benefits from the date of his promotion.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, who was granted notional promotion with retrospective effect, was entitled to arrears of pay and financial benefits from the date of his promotion, considering the principle of 'no work no pay'.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the principle of 'no work no pay' is not absolute and can have exceptions, especially when the employee is wrongly denied promotion for no fault of his own. It relied on various judgments to support the exceptions to the principle and held that the petitioner was entitled to arrears of pay and financial benefits from the date of his promotion.
Final Decision: The court accepted the writ petition, quashed the clause denying the petitioner arrears of pay, and directed the respondents to calculate and pay the arrears to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of the order. It also directed the redetermination of the petitioner's pension accordingly.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
1. Petitioner-Gian Singh was posted as a Senior Assistant at Primary Health Centre, Sarhali, District Amritsar. By way of this writ petition, he has assailed the order dated 10th August, 1992 (Annexure P- 7), whereby he was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant in the payscale of Rs. 570-15-600/20-700/25-950/30-100-1080 respectively with effect from 19th March, 1982 notionally. One of the conditions contained in the promotion order was as under :-
"He will not be entitled to claim any arrear of pay etc. as Assistant from the date of promotion to the date he actually joins duty at his new place of posting as he had not actually worked as Assistant (now designated as Senior Assistant)."
2. Grievance of the petitioner is that since delay in promotion was caused due to a wrong committed by the official respondents and that there being no fault on his part, he cannot be denied consequential benefits of his promotion, including arrears of pay etc., to which he is entitled with effect from 19th March, 1982, the date on which he was due for promotion. Therefore, by way of present writ petition, quashing of the above said portion of the promotion order (Annexure P-7) has been sought for along with the order dated 29th December, 1992 (Annexure P-8), whereby representation of the petitioner was rejected by the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab. The petitioner has also sought quashing of the order dated 1st June, 1994 (Annexure P-10), whereby it was communicated to him that the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab had declined his representation/appeal dated 22.02.1993 vide office Memo. dated 18th March, 1994.
3. This writ petition formulates an important question of law to be answered by this Court, which can be noticed as under :
The principal of `no work no pay, having been recognized and acknowledged by the Courts, whether the same is subject to exceptions for the grant of arrears, monetary and consequential benefits, where notional promotion is granted to an employee with retrospective effect ?
Before an attempt is made to answer this question, it will be necessary to narrate brief facts of the case.
4 The petitioner avers that he was appointed as a Clerk on 15.05.1962 on regular basis in the Health and Family Welfare Department in pursuance of his selection by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab, Chandigarh. On circulation of the seniority list, it surfaced that due to a mistake of the officials of the respondent Department, the date of joining of the petitioner in the Department was wrongly recorded as 30th November, 1965 and he was placed lower in the seniority list. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation (Annexure P-1) dated 12th February, 1980 to the authorities, the relevant portion of which reads as under :
"It is requested that I joined my duty as a Clerk on 15.5.1962 in V.J. Hospital, Amritsar on regular basis. But in the seniority list of Clerks & Store keepers my date of appointment has been mentioned as 30.11.1965. I work as a Clerk from 15.5.62 to 30.11.65 duly selected by S.S.S. Board, Pb. Chandigarh. But now the posts of Store Keepers have been encadered with Clerks. It is therefore requested that date of joining service may kindly be corrected as 15.5.1962 instead of 30.11.1965 for which I shall be highly thankful to you."
5. The representation (Annexure P-1) submitted by the petitioner, in which the above said facts were detailed, was not considered by the authorities and on 19th March, 1982, various officials of the Department, who were junior to the petitioner, were promoted vide order (Annexure P-2). This immediately prompted the petitioner to submit another representation (Annexure P-3) on 16th November, 1982. This representation reiterated the fact that date of joining of the petitioner in the Department has been wrongly shown as 30th November, 1965 instead of 15th May, 1962 and due to the fault on the part of the
