An employee is entitled to retrospective promotion and associated monetary benefits if prior disciplinary actions are set aside and if the delay in promotion is due to administrative negligence.

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by Mr.K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.) This Intra-Court Appeal had been preferred as against the order of the learned Single Judge, wherein the order of the second appellant herein rejecting the monetary benefits to the respondent who had been notionally promoted with retrospective effect on the ground of “No work no pay” has been set aside.

2. Heard Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar, learned State Government Pleader for the appellants and Mr.N.Alagu Narayanan, learned counsel for M/s.RRN Legal, appearing on behalf of the respondent.

3. Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar, learned State Government Pleader for the appellants would contend that the respondent herein was initially imposed with a punishment of down grading her to the post of Junior Assistant for a period of three months from the post of Senior Grade Assistant for the charges framed against her. The said order was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.2253 of 2009. But, however permitted the Disciplinary Authority to conduct a fresh enquiry in respect of the said charges. After due enquiry, the respondent was imposed with a punishment of censure vide proceedings dated 22.09.2014. On an appeal filed by the respondent to the second appellant, the second appellant had set aside the punishment and had decided to drop the charges framed against the respondent, however had warned her not to give room for any complaint in future. The said order came to be passed on 10.10.2015 and thereafter by a communication dated 11.01.2018, the second appellant had also passed orders granting retrospective promotion to the respondent to the cadre of Assistant Manager with effect from 01.06.2012 and the cadre of Deputy Manager with effect from 14.07.2015 (the dates on which her immediate Junior was promoted) and the pay of the individual was also directed to be fixed in the promoted cadres with retrospective effect. Thereafter, the respondent had made a representation for arrears of pay and allowance, pension and all other consequential benefits upon the said notional promotion. The said request was rejected by the second appellant by holding that on the said date the respondent had not worked in the said promoted cadre and therefore, only such notional fixation could have been made. The said order was challenged by the respondent and the learned Single Judge without looking into the Rules had held that it is not the fault of the respondent, which had denied her the promotion at the right time but for the charges that had been framed for which punishment had been imposed and originally been set aside by this Court and secondly by the Appellate Authority himself, by dropping the charges. The respondent was denied the arrears of pay on the principle of “No work no pay”. He would submit that when the person had not been holding the post, which would entitle her to draw the higher salary, then such person cannot be entitled for actual monetary benefits and only notional monetary benefits and therefore, the second respondent had rightfully granted only the monetary benefits notionally and not the actual monetary benefits. But, however the learned Single Judge had directed the appellants to pay the arrears that the respondent would have otherwise been entitled to and also burdened the appellants by directing them to pay the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the delayed payment of arrears.

Hence, he would seek interference of this Court.

4. Countering his arguments, Mr.N.Alagu Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that it was no fault of the respondent that she had been denied of her due promotion. On a flimsy charge, she had been sought to be departmentally proceeded and she had been imposed with a punishment of down grading her cadre. The said order had been set aside by the learned Single Judge of this Court with a liberty to the appellants to conduct a fresh Disciplinary enquiry. The said order has not been challenged by the appellants and in compliance with th