Holding

Monetary benefits for retrospective promotion depend on the facts of each case; in this case, granting arrears from the date of filing the petition (15 June 1972) is justified.

Summary

E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai, who joined the Kerala service in 1957, was promoted retrospectively effective 15 September 1961 after his juniors had been promoted, but he was not paid the arrears of salary. He filed a representation on 15 June 1972 and later O.P. No. 585 of 1975 seeking full monetary benefits from the promotion date. The Kerala High Court, after review, granted him arrears only from the date of his filing (15 June 1972) and not from 1961, reasoning that he had not actually worked in the post earlier. The State appealed, contending that the principle "no work no pay" barred any back wages. The Supreme Court held that the award of monetary benefits for retrospective promotion is fact‑specific; there is no hard rule and the "no work no pay" principle is not absolute. In the present case, granting benefits from the filing date was reasonable, and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a person promoted retrospectively is entitled to arrears of salary from the date of promotion when he did not actually perform the duties of the promoted post.
Whether the principle "no work no pay" bars the grant of monetary benefits in cases of retrospective promotion.
Whether the Kerala High Court's order granting arrears only from the date of filing the petition is legally justified.

Subjects

retrospective promotionarrears of salaryno work no payservice lawmonetary benefitsback wagesSupreme Court

Judgment

STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. A
~ 'i v.
E.K. BHASKARAN PILLAI

APRIL 17, 2007

[A.K. MATHUR AND LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] B

Service Law-Promotion-Retrospective promotion-Grant of monetary
benefits associated therewith-Held, depends upon various facets-Differs
from case to case-No hard and fast rule can be laid down-Court may or
may not grant full benefits with retrospective effect-On facts, where
c
Respondent was promoted with retrospective effect i.e. from I 5. 9. I 96 I and
he filed a petition dated I 5. 6. I 972, the Court was justified in granting
benefit from the date of the petition and not from the date of promotion.

As per the directions given by the Court, the case of Respondent was D
considered and it was found that persons junior to him were promoted and he
was wrongly denied promotion. Respondent was promoted from retrospective
. effect i.e. 15.9.1961 but he was not paid the benefit of promotion in terms of

- arrears of salary. Single Judge of High Court did not give him the monetary
benefit of promotional post from retrospective effect in terms of arrears of
salary. In the review application, the benefit was given from the date he filed
application before the Court i.e.15.6.1972 and not with effect from 15.?.1961
E

as prayed by him. The order passed in review was upheld by the Division Bench.
•
In the present appeal it was contended by the State that grant of
retrospective benefit on promotional post cannot be given to the incumbent
when he has not worked on the said post and therefore Respondent was not F
- --'!
entitled to any benefit on the promotional post from 15.6.1972.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. So far as the situation with regard to monetary benefits with
retrospective promotion is concerned, that depends upon case to case. There G
are various facets which have to be considered. Sometimes in a case of
> - '> departmental enquiry or in criminal case it depends on the authorities to grant
full back wages or 50 per cent of back wages looking to the nature of

251 H
252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 5 S.C.R.

A delinquency involved in the matter or in criminal cases where the incumbent )'"
<
has been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt or full acquittal. Sometimes in
the matter when the person is superseded and he has challenged the same
before Court or Tribunal and he succeeds in that and direction is given for
reconsideration of his case from the date persons junior to him were
appointed, in that case the Court may grant sometime full benefits with
B retrospective effect and sometimes it may not. Particularly when the
administration has wrongly denied his due then in that case he should be given
full benefits including monetary benefit subject to there being any change in
>--- -.4
law or some other supervening factors. However, it is very difficult to set down
any hard and fast rule. The principle 'no work no pay' cannot be accepted as
c a rule of thumb. There are exceptions where courts have granted monetary
benefits slso. [Para 41 [255-B-DI

1.2. However, so far as pre~ent case is concerned, as per directions given
by the Court, Respondent's case was considered and it was found that persons
junior to him were appointed and he was wrongly denied. Therefore, the
D Respondent was promoted from retrospective effect i.e. 15.9.1961 but he was
not paid the benefit of promotion in terms of arrears of salary. Therefore, he
approached the Court and Single Judge did not give him the monetary benefit
of the promotional post from retrospective effect in terms of arrears of salary. ~ '
In the review application, the benefit was given from the date he filed O.P. No.
585of1975 i.e. 15.6.1972. This arrears to be reasonable. The Respondent
E
did not approach the Court for the back wages from 15.9.1961 but he filed a
petition dated 15.6.1972 and the Court granted the benefit from the date of
filing of the petition before the Court i.e. 15.6.1972. The incumbent in the
meanwhile has retired on 31. 7.1980. Therefore, looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case, the view taken by the High Court appears to be
F justified and then. is no ground to interfere in it. [Para 51 [255-E-GI
'!'- -

Paluru Ramkrishnaiah & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., [19891 2 SCC
541; Virender Kumar, G.M, Northern Railways v. Avinash Chandra Chadha
& Ors., [199013SCC472; State of Haryana & Ors. v. O.P. Gupta & Ors.,
[1996) 7 SCC 533; A. K. Soumini v. State Bank ofTravancore & Anr., [2003)
G 7 SCC 238; Union ofIndia & Anr. v. Tarsem Lal & Ors., [2006110 SCC 145;
Union of India & Ors. v. K. V. Jankiraman & Ors. [199114 SCC 109; State of
A.P. v. K. V.L. Narasimha Rao & Ors., [1999) 4 SCC 181; Vasant Rao Roman {- .
v. Union ofIndia & Ors., [1993) 2 SCC 324 and State of U.P. & Anr. v. Vinod
Kumar Srivastava, [2006) 9 SCC 621, referred to.
H
STATEOFKERALA v. E.K. BHASKARAN PILLAI [AK. MATHUR.J.] 2:;3

) 'i CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7953 of2004. A
{ From the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.2002 of the High Court of
Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No. 1560of1998(A).

C.S. Ranjan and P.V. Dinesh for the Appellants
B
C.N. Sree Kumar for the Respondent.

.. -· The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

A.K. MATHUR, J. I. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 28.11.2002 passed
c
by the Division Bench of Kerala High Court whereby the Division Bench of
the High Court has granted limited relief to the writ-petitioner (respondent
herein) by which he was given the benefit of arrears of salary on the date of
his filing the application, i.e., 15.6.1972 and not with effect from 15.9.1961 as
prayed by him. D
3. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the writ-
~ petitioner joined the service on 25.2.J 957 and while working as First Grade
Draftsman his juniors were promoted and the petitioner was not He filed a
~

representation dated 15.6.1972 calling upon the Government to give him all the
benefits of promotion which were given to his juniors. His representation was- E
not considered. Therefore, he filed O.P. No. 585 of 1975 and the High Court
by order dated 12.8.1977 directed the Government to consider the representation
of the petitioner with reference to any policy decision and on the merits of
the representation made by the petitioner. The Government considered the
___., representation of the petitioner sympathetically and directed that the petitioner
F
be granted promotion with effect from 15.9.1961. By order dated 4.1.1979 the
petitioner was actually promoted and he joined the promotional post on
11.5.1979 and retired from service on 31.7.1980. Thereafter, he made an
application that he may be given all benefits of promotional post with effect
from 15 .9 .1961. The monetary benefits were not given to the petitioner. Lots
of correspondence transpired in between and ultimately Government by order, G

- It
- )
Ext.P5 directed that the petitioner would be entitled to monetary benefits only
for the period i.e., 11.5.1979 till 31.7.1980 during which period he actually
worked on the promotional post. It was also clarified that he would be entitled
to all benefits from 15.9. 1961 except the monetary benefits. The petitioner
made further representation but without any result. Therefore, he again filed
H
254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R

A a writ petition and the learned Single Judge held that the petitioner was not r
entitled to get any monetary benefits from 15.9.1961to10.5.1979. But it was
directed that pensionary benefits would be paid to the petitioner as if he had
worked as Assistant Engineer from 15.9.1961 i.e., from the date he was
promoted. Thereafter, a review petition was filed. The learned Single Judge by
his order dated 3.12.1997 in R.P. No.331 of 1997 held that the petitioner was
B entitled to his salary forthe period from 15.6.1972 till I l.5.1979. However, it
was made clear that no interest would be paid. Then again, the petitioner filed
a Writ Appeal which came to be registered as W.A. 1560 of 1998 for the )>-- ~

monetary benefits from 15. 9.1961. The State also preferred a Writ Appeal
which came to be registered as W.A. 1451of1998. The State claimed that the
c review was not justified. Both the appeals were taken together. However,
question of review order passed by the Court was not interfered with and the
Writ Appeal filed by the State challenging the review order passed by the
learned Single Judge was dismissed. However, the Division Bench examined
the question of grant of monetary benefits to the petitioner on his retrospective
promotion from 15.9.1961. The Division Bench referred to various decisions
D of this Court as well as the judgment of the Kerala High Court. After going
through all case laws on the subject, the High Court directed that the petitioner
would be entitled to higher pay on account of retrospective promotion with K

effect from 15.6.1972 when he filed O.P. 585 of 1975 but declined to grant any
benefit from 15.9.1961. Ultimately the Court passed the order that the petitioner ....
E should be paid all the monetary benefits with effect from 15.6.1972 within 90
days failing which the petitioner was entitled to interest @ 9 per cent on the
date on which such amount was due. Aggrieved against this order dated
28.11.2002, the State of Kerala preferred this Special Leave Petition.

4. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that grant of retrospective
F benefit on promotional post cannot be given to the incumbent when he has '>'-· -
not worked on the said post. Therefore, he is not entitled to any benefit on
the promotional post from 15.6.1972. In support thereof, the learned counsel
invited our attention to the decisions of this Court in Paluru Ramkrishnaiah
& Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., (1989] 2 SCC 541, Virender Kumar, G.M.,
Northern Railways v. Avinash Chandra Chadha & Ors., [1990] 3 SCC 472,
G State ofHaryana & Ors. v. O.P. Gupta & Ors., [1996] 7 SCC 533, A.K. Soumini
v. State Bank ofTravancore & Anr., [2003] 7 SCC 238 and Union of India &
Anr. v. Tarsem Lal & Ors., (2006] l 0 SCC 145. As against this, the learned
~ - ,
counsel for the respondent has invited our attention to the decisions given
by this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. K. V. Jankiraman & Ors., [ 1991] 4
H SCC 109, State of A.P. v. K. l~L. Narasimha Rao & Ors., (1999] 4 SCC 181,
ST ATE OF KERALA v. E.K. BHASKARAN PILLAI [A.K. MATHUR. J.) 255

Vasant Rao Roman v. Union of India & Ors., [1993] Supp. 2 SCC 324 and A
• '\
State of U.P. & Anr. v. Vinod Kumar Srivastava, [2006] 9 SCC 621. We have
considered the decisions cited on behalf of both the sides. So far as the
situation with regard to monetary benefits with retrospective promotion is
concerned, that depends upon case to case. There are various facets which
have to be considered. Sometimes in a case of departmental enquiry or in
criminal case it depends on the authorities to grant full back wages or 50 per
B
cent of back wages looking to the nature of delinquency involved in the
._ ~
matter or in criminal cases where the incumbent has been acquitted by giving
benefit of doubt or full acquittal. Sometimes in the matter when the person
is superseded and he has challenged the same before Court or Tribunal and
he succeeds in that and direction is given for reconsideration of his case from c
the date persons junior to him were appointed, in that case the Court may
grant sometime full benefits with retrospective effect and sometimes it may
not. Particularly when the administration has wrongly denied his due then in
that case he should be given full benefits including monetary benefit subject
to there being any change in law or some other supervening factors. However,
it is very difficult to set down any hard and fast rule. The principle 'no work D
no pay' cannot be accepted as a rule of thumb. There are exceptions where
courts have granted monetary benefits also.
"
5. However, so far as present case is concerned, as per directions given
by the Court, petitioner's case was considered and it was found that persons
E
junior to him were appointed and he was wrongly denied. Therefore, the
petitioner was promoted from retrospective effect i.e. 15.9.1961 but he was not
paid the benefit of promotion in terms of arrears of salary. Therefore, he
approached the Court and learned Single Judge did not give him the monetary
benefit of the promotional post from retrospective effect in terms of arrears
of salary. In the review application, the benefit was given from the date he F
~-1
filed O.P. No. 585of1975 i.e. 15.6.1972. This appears to be reasonable. The
petitioner did not approach the Court for the back wages from 15.9.1961 but
he filed a petition dated 15.6.1972 and the Court granted the benefit from the
date of filing of the petition before the Court i.e. 15.6.1972. The incumbent in
the meanwhile has retired on 31. 7.1980. Therefore, looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case, the view taken by the High Court appears to be
G

. -)_ justified and there is no ground to interfere in it.

- B.B.B.
6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

Appeal is Dismissed.
H