Retrospective promotion with "consequential benefits" does not automatically entitle an employee to back-wages under the "no work no pay" principle if they did not perform the higher post's duties. Contempt jurisdiction is limited to wilful disobedience of explicit directions, not resolving ambiguities or granting new reliefs.

ORDER :

DWARKA DHISH BANSAL, J.

This contempt petition has been preferred by the petitioner alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 20/08/2024 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.11828/2005.

2. Relevant paragraph 6 of the aforesaid order is reproduced as under:-

“6. In view of the above discourse, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.05.2005 is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to grant promotion to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Project Range Officer with effect from the date he became entitled on securing first position in the training of forest guard i.e. 15.09.2004 with all consequential benefits of the said post within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

3. Taking this Court to the compliance report dated 19/02/2025 as well as subsequent compliance report dated 31/01/2026, learned counsel for the respondent submits that as per the order passed by this Court on 20/08/2024, the petitioner has been promoted w.e.f.15/09/2004, by passing the order on 27/01/2026. He further submits that since the petitioner was already promoted w.e.f. 29/10/2015, therefore, he has already been given the benefit of promotional post w.e.f.29/10/2015. He also submits that since the petitioner did not work on the promotional post w.e.f.15/09/2004, therefore, he is not entitled for back-wages in the light of order passed by this Court regarding entitlement of the petitioner to all the consequential benefits. As such, he submits that there being no wilful disobedience on the part of the respondent and since the order passed by this Court, has already been complied with fully, therefore, the contempt proceedings deserve to be dropped. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Paluru Ramkrishnaiah and Others vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1990 SC 166; State of Haryana and others vs. O.P. Gupta , AIR 1996 SC 2936; Union of India and another vs. Tarsem Lal and others , (2006) 10 SCC 145; K. Anand Rao and others vs. S.S. Rawat, IAS and others , (2019) 13 SCC 24 and Ratnank Mishra & Others vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through Registrar General, 2025 INSC 1477.

4. In turn, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has been promoted w.e.f.15/09/2004, therefore, in the light of clear direction issued by this Court regarding payment of all the consequential benefits of the promotional post, the petitioner is entitled for the back-wages also, which have not been paid to the petitioner by disobeying the order passed by this Court. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Inder Parkash Gupta vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors., (2004) 6 SCC 786; The Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board vs. C. Muddaiah , (2007) 7 SCC 689; Union of India and others vs. Col. Ran Singh Dudee , (2018) 8 SCC 53; Jyotsna Singh vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. , AIR 2025 SC 4436; and Havaldar Tejbali vs. Major Nachhattar Singh and Anr. , 1997 Supreme (MP) 101. As such, he submits that by not granting the consequential benefits, the respondent has wilfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court and he deserves to be punished appropriately.

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

6. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, questions that arise in the instant case are as to whether upon granting promotion from back date, the employee is entitled to back wages automatically, especially when the writ Court has ordered grant of all the consequential benefits of promotional post; and whether back wages are included in the expression ‘all consequential benefits’?

7. Several times an identical question came before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was answered as under:

i. A three-judge Bench, in the case of Paluru Ramkrishnaiah and others v. Union of India and another, AIR 199