Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 13701
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: 22.04.2026
Judgment delivered on: 03.07.2026
Judgment uploaded on: As per Digital Signature~
LPA 65/2014
NTPC LTD .....Appellant
versus
M P TIWARI AND ORS .....Respondents
LPA 759/2014
MP TIWARI .....Appellant
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the NTPC : Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate.
For M P Tiwari : Ms. Richa Kapoor, Mr. Kunal Anand and Ms. Aditi Rathore, Advocates
For the UOI : Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocates for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rajesh Gupta, Richa Kapoor, Kunal Anand, Aditi Rathore
For the Respondents: Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, Vivek Sharma
The 'no pay for no work' principle is not absolute and does not apply when an employer is at fault for denying a earned promotion. Additionally, consent recorded by a court in a litigant's presence is binding and cannot be retracted post-facto without compelling evidence of bad faith.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Promotion - Principle of 'no pay for no work' - This principle is not an absolute or inflexible rule and depends on the specific facts of each case - Where a candidate is denied a promotional post due to the fault of the management despite being successful in the selection process, the candidate is entitled to claim monetary benefits for the post from which they were deprived. (Paras 9, 11)
(B) Service Law - Finality of selection committee recommendations - Once recommendations for promotion by an internal committee have attained finality and are acted upon for other personnel, the employer cannot deny the benefit of promotion to a successful candidate based on disputed or unfinalized administrative settlements. (Para 7)
(C) Appeal - Procedural fairness - Consent recorded by a court, particularly when provided in the presence of a litigant, is legally binding - Attempting to withdraw or challenge such consent after significant time has elapsed, under the pretext of misunderstanding, is considered mala fide and will not be entertained. (Para 12, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the denial of a promotion despite being recommended by a selection committee. The lower court allowed the petition, awarding partial monetary compensation for the period of non-appointment. The employer filed an appeal challenging the grant of relief, while the petitioner filed a cross-appeal claiming entitlement to further promotions and higher cumulative financial benefits, while also seeking to withdraw previous consent regarding the quantum of relief.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the management was at fault for failing to implement the promotion despite the finality of the selection process. The argument that the petitioner refused to join a specific location was found unsubstantiated due to the lack of an official promotion order. The court also held that the consent provided by the petitioner before the lower court was binding, and the belated attempt to withdraw it was a dishonest and mala fide action.
Issues: The central issues were whether the principle of 'no pay for no work' bars a claim for back-wages where a promotion is wrongfully denied, and whether a litigant is permitted to unilaterally retract a consent decree recorded in court at a later stage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the principle of 'no pay for no work' is not an absolute bar and does not apply when the fault for non-appointment lies solely with the employer. Furthermore, judicial records of consent given in person by a litigant cannot be avoided retrospectively to pursue extended claims for which no substantive prayer was originally made.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
1. These cross intra Court appeals have been filed, whereby, National Thermal Power Corporation (for short ‘NTPC’) has challenged the order dated 06.11.2013 in W.P.(C) No.6521/1998 in LPA 65/2014 and M.P. Tiwari has challenged the order dated 22.08.2014 in LPA 759/2014 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed his application for modification of order dated 06.11.2013.
2. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 06.11.2013 has allowed the aforesaid writ petition by stating in paragraphs 10 to 12 the following manner:-
“10. I may also note that there is no delay and laches in filing this petition because once the recommendations of DPC became final, and documents were issued in the office of respondent no.3 itself to this effect, and filed at running pages 286-287 showing that petitioner was in fact promoted as an Assistant Engineer w.e.f 1.7.1983, I would not like to hold the petition as barred by delay and laches unless there was a specific refusal issued to the petitioner denying the benefits of the post of Assistant Engineer, and only when cause of action would have accrued to the petitioner to approach the Court. In the absence of any refusal addressed to the petitioner, that he would not be promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in spite of his being put on the merit list panel as per the DPC of February, 1984, there was no need of the petitioner to approach the Court, albeit the petitioner will only be entitled to monetary emoluments for the promoted post for a period not more than three years prior to filing of the present writ petition.
11. The issue then arises is that what should be the relief which should be granted to the petitioner in this case. I have put to learned senior counsel for the petitioner, and who has accordingly taken instructions from the petitioner who is present in Court, that petitioner will be satisfied on his getting 1/3rd of the monetary emoluments as payable to an Assistant Engineer for 3 years prior to filing of the present writ petition. This entitlement of 1/3rd of the monetary emoluments as payable to the Assistant Engineer will of course be payable till the time the petitioner retired on 30.6.2003. Therefore, applying the ratio of E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai’s case (supra) I hold that in the facts of the present case since petitioner without any fault of his has been denied the promotion post of Assistant Engineer, and at no point of time the petitioner refused to work at the post of Assistant Engineer, petitioner will be entitled to 1/3rd of monetary emoluments payable for the post of Assistant Engineer for the period of 3 years prior to the filing of the writ petition and till the date of his retirement on 30.6.2003.
12. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. Petitioner will be granted 1/3rd of the monetary emoluments payable to him as if he was an Assistant Engineer for the period of 3 years prior to the filing of the writ petition and which monetary emoluments will be payable till the retirement of the petitioner on 30.6.2003. The monetary package be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from today, and if not paid within three months, then petitioner thereafter will be entitled to interest at 7 ½ % per annum simple till the amount is paid. Parties are left to bear their own costs.”
3. In LPA 65/2024, the NTPC has challenged the decision of the learned Single Judge on its merit whereby the NTPC was directed to promote M.P. Tiwari to the post of Assistant Engineer as per the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held in the month of February 1984 and granted 1/3rd of the monetary emoluments payable to him on his promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer for the period three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.
4. In LPA 759/2014, M.P. Tiwari has challenged the order whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the application seeking modification of the order dated 06.11.2013 in
