##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4340

1 WP-1884-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT

rd

ON THE 3 OF FEBRUARY, 2026

WRIT PETITION No. 1884 of 2016

RAM AVTAR SHARMA

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Bhanu Prakash Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri G.K. Agarwal - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.

ORDER

This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been

filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this

petition and issue the necessary direction to pay the undisputed

retirement dues of the petitioner.

(ii) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the arrear

of promoted post of Executive Engineer w.e.f. 17.04.1998 and the

interest at market rate may also be awarded to the petitioner for the

delayed payment ill the actual payment.

(iii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and

proper may also be given to the petitioner along-with costs."

Learned counsel for the petitioner withdraws Relief No. 1 and confines

the petition to Relief No. 2 only.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner

was given the proforma promotion on the post of Executive Engineer w.e.f.

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: MONIKA

SHARMA

Signing time: 2/4/2026

5:48:12 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4340

2 WP-1884-2016

17.04.1998 vide order dated 22.10.2012. As per order of Division Bench this

Court in the matter of R.B. Guhe Vs. The State of M.P. reported in 2008 (5)

MPHT 291 (DB), it was contended that the principles of "No Work No Pay"

shall not apply to a case where the lapses are on the part of the Government

in not promoting a particular person.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State supported the

impugned order and submitted that the respondents have rightly denied back

wages on the principle of “No Work No Pay,” as the petitioner has not

worked on the promotional post. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to

the salary of the promotional post with retrospective effect.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The petitioner was granted proforma promotion to the post of

Executive Engineer w.e.f. 17.04.1998, vide order dated 22.10.2012. As per

order of Division Bench this Court in the matter of R.B. Guhe (supra), it was

contended that the principles of "No Work No Pay" shall not apply to a case

where the lapses are on the part of the Government in not promoting a

particular person.

6. The law relating to consideration of uncommunicated ACRs for

promotion or upgradation is no longer res integra. In the case of Gurdial

Singh Fijji Vs. State of Punjab & Ors (1979) 2 SCC 368, the court held that

the non-inclusion of a government servant in the select list on account of

adverse entry which was not communicated and the opportunity was not

afforded to submit representation, cannot be made basis for denial of the

promotion. In the case of Kaluram Patidar Vs. State of MP & Ors WP

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: MONIKA

SHARMA

Signing time: 2/4/2026

5:48:12 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4340

3 WP-1884-2016

No.11064/2010 decided on 25.8.2011, this court relying on the judgment

passed by the Apex Court in the case of Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar Vs. Union

of India (2009) 6 SCC 146 came to the conclusion that the ACRs which have

been resulted in denial of the selection grade cannot be considered to be a

ground for denying the claim to an employee. In the case of Dev Dutt Vs.

Union of India & Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 725, it has been held that non-

communication of entries in the ACRS of a public servant has civil

consequences because it may affect his chance for promotion or get other

benefits. Such non-communication of adverse ACRS would be arbitrary

and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The same has been

followed by a coordinate Bench in the case of Rajendra Kumar Verma vs.

State of M.P. 2017(1) MPLJ