Retrospective promotion does not entitle an employee to arrears of pay unless they have worked in the promotional post, following the principle of 'no work no pay'.

ORDER

PER: JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)

This OA has been filed on 15.05.2024 being aggrieved by the order dated 13.03.2024 (Annexure – A1) by which the notional promotion has been given to the applicant from 04.02.2020 but the consequential benefits are not given. The reliefs claimed in para 8 of the OA are as under:-

“A) In view of the facts and grounds enumerated above, it is most respectfully prayed that the respondents may be directed to allow consequential benefits of arrears of pay from 4.2.2020, the date of retrospective promotion, alongwith interest for the period of delay.

B) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may be issued in favour of the Applicant.”

2. It is an admitted fact that previously the applicant had filed OA No. 447/2021 which was decided by the Division Bench of this Tribunal on 15.09.2023 and the following order was passed:-

“ORDER

(i) OA stands allowed in terms of the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 232/2020, dated 06.11.2020.

(ii) The respondents are directed to undertake an exercise of review DPC and consider the applicant’s case for promotion to the post of Senior T.A while taking into account the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pratibha Rani & others, Civil Appeal No. 3792-3793/2019 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 31728/2018 & 32988/2018) decided on 10.04.2019. The whole exercise shall be undertaken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

No order as to costs.”

3. It is also admitted that in compliance with the aforesaid order of Division Bench of this Tribunal the respondents issued the order dated 13.03.2024 (Annexure – A1) and by this order the applicant was granted proforma promotion from the date of 04.02.2020.

4. The applicant is aggrieved by non-granting of the arrear of pay from the date of retrospective promotion i.e. 04.02.2020. As per applicant, she is entitled to the consequential benefits in the light of order dated 21.06.2016 (Annexure – A3) passed by another Division Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 1737/2015. It is submitted by the applicant that the aforesaid OA filed by Hena Kausar has similar facts and circumstances and the said OA was already decided by the Division Bench of this Tribunal by granting all consequential benefits along with the retrospective promotion. The aforesaid order has been implemented by the respondents by issuing the order dated 20.06.2023 (Annexure – A4). The present applicant is the similarly situated person. Therefore, as per Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India, she is also entitled to the similar consequential benefits.

5. On the other side, it is submitted by the respondents counsel that against the aforesaid judgment dated 21.06.2016 passed by the Division Bench in OA No. 1737/2015, the Writ Petition No. 20954/2024 has been filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and the aforesaid writ is still pending.

6. It appears from the perusal of Annexure – A3 which is the order passed by another Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 1737/2015 that the aforesaid OA was also related to the retrospective promotion. In para 13, the following relief has been granted:-

“The OA therefore succeeds. The respondents are directed to convene a review D.P.C. to consider the applicant’s case for promotion afresh after counting her regular service in the grade in the places where she worked, provided she fulfils other prescribed conditions. The applicant is entitled to consequential benefits upon receiving promotion to the post of STA. This entire exercise should be completed within three months of receiving a copy of our order. There is no order as to costs.”

7. In compliance with the aforesaid order, the department issued the order dated 20.06.2023 (Annexure – A4) by which the notional promotion was granted to three applicants of that case and in para 2 of the aforesaid order it was also mentio