An employee denied promotion due to employer's fault is entitled to back wages and benefits as if they had worked, overriding the 'No Work No Pay' principle.

Headnote:(A) Promotion and Service Benefits - The applicant sought promotion as Goods Guard from 08.04.2003, claiming discrimination as a junior was promoted earlier - The Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to promotion and back wages due to administrative lapses by the respondents. (Paras 3, 15)

(B) No Work No Pay Principle - The court emphasized that adherence to 'No Work No Pay' should not disadvantage an employee when the employer's fault caused the delay in promotion. (Paras 9, 15)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, appointed in 1985, faced delays in promotion and pay fixation due to administrative lapses, while juniors were promoted.

Findings of Court:
The applicant is entitled to back wages and promotion from 08.04.2003, with all consequential benefits to be provided within three months.

Issues: The main issues were the applicant's entitlement to promotion and back wages due to administrative lapses.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant's denial of promotion was unjust due to the employer's fault, and thus, he is entitled to all benefits as if he had worked.

Result: The OA is accordingly allowed.

ORDER

By Hon’ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative):

Shri R.K. Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri K.K. Ojha and Shri Jaswant Singh, learned counsel for the respondents are present. 2. By means of this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs :

“(i) The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to promote the applicant as Goods Guard w.e.f. 08.04.2003 as the junior person at Jhansi Division Shri Rajendra Prasad S/o Matru has been promoted as Goods Guard w.e.f. 08.04.2003 and then issue other consequential benefits viz. further promotion to the higher posts with all consequential benefits viz. difference of pay and allowances etc.

(ii) To issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case..

(iii) To award the cost of Rs. 50,000/- payable in favour of applicant and recover the amount from the responsible authority for not grant promotion.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed on post of Assistant Pointsman in the Grade Pay of Rs.196-232 on 09.12.1985 at Ata Station. On 09.05.1994, the applicant was promoted on the post of Pointsman, further promoted on the post of T.N.C. Grade Pay of Rs. 950- 1500 on 30.9.1994. The respondents issued a notification vide letter dated 3.9.2002 for the 60% departmental quota promotion for grade pay of Rs. 4500-7000 R.S.R.P. On 04.03.2003, the respondent no.6 had issued promotion order in favour of the applicant for the post of Sr. T.N.C. in Grade pay Rs. 4000/- + 6000/- R.S.R.P. at Jhansi against the vacant post. The applicant made a representation dated 16.07.2003 regarding non issuing of relieving order as the respondents have acted in discriminatory manner and relieved the junior T.N.C. namely Mr. Rajendra S/o Shri Matru. Being aggrieved, the applicant again made another representation dated 23.12.2006 and reminder dated 15.01.2007 but respondents have not given promotion as well as pay fixation of the applicant. The respondent no.5 published a seniority list dated 25.10.2007 in which the name of the applicant was placed against the post of Junior T.N.C. Grade Rs.3050-4590 (RSRP) of Agra Division. It is submitted that the junior to applicant was given promotion for the post of Chief T.N.C. Grade Rs. 5500-9000 (RSRP) of Agra Division. It is further submitted that the respondents have given the higher pay and post to junior employee and being a senior the applicant was given less pay and lower post, which is totally against the Rule. Being aggrieved, the applicant further made a representation dated 14.09.2010 before grievance cell of Agra Division. The office of respondent no.5 wrote a letter with regard to promotion of the applicant in the office of respondent no.6 and requested to the respondent no.6 to provide a copy of order No.17/2003 dated 4.3.2003. In pursuance of letter sent by the office of respondent no.5, office of respondent no.6 sent a letter dated 22.6.2011 alongwith office order No.17/2003 dated 4.3.2003 on 22.06.2011. The aapplicant again sent a representation/reminder dated 30.10.2017 to the respondents. It is submitted that the respondents have not given promotion and pay and arrears to the applicant and kept the grievance pending for about 17 years and mislead the applicant and not given promotion and pay and arrears to the applicant from the due date. Applicant filed an OA No.1448 of 2017 before this Hon'ble Tribunal, which was disposed of with direction to the respondents to decide the representation dated 30.10.2017 of the applicant by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The respondents themselves admitted this fact that the applicant was not relieved to carry out his transfer on promotion from Baad-yard to CTO Jhansi on administrative reasons/ lapses. Due to non granting of promotion, applicant is facing financial crisis for about 17 years and due to lapses on the part of respondents, they have given prom

Click Here to Read the rest of this document