UNION OF INDIAversusB.M. JHA
- Citation
- 2007 INSC 1101
- Decided
- 24 October 2007
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
Arrears of salary cannot be granted for a retrospective promotion where the employee has not performed the duties of the promoted post.
Summary
The respondent, an incumbent employee, was granted a retrospective promotion effective 27 August 1984 and claimed arrears of pay and allowances for the period up to 5 February 1992. The Central Administrative Tribunal and the Delhi High Court allowed the claim. The appellant challenged these orders before the Supreme Court, arguing that arrears cannot be awarded where the employee did not actually perform the duties of the promoted post. The Court reiterated the established principle of "no work, no pay," relying on State of Haryana v. D.P. Gupta, A.K. Soumini v. State Bank of Travancore, and State of Andhra Pradesh v. K.V.L. Narasimha Rao. Consequently, the Court held that arrears of salary are not payable for a notional, retrospective promotion. The appeal was allowed and the orders of the Tribunal and High Court were set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether an employee promoted retrospectively is entitled to arrears of salary and allowances for the period before actually assuming the higher post.
Subjects
Judgment
)
.,.......
\
UNION OF INDIA A
"·
B.M.JHA
OCTOBER 24, 2007
[A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KATJU,JJ.)
B
)'--
y·
Service Law:
Retrospective promotion-Claim for arrears of pay and
allowances from date of promotion-Allowed by Central
c
Administrative Tribunal as also by High Court-HELD: In the light
ofthe consistent view taken by this Court, arrears ofsalary cannot be
granted in view of the principle of no work no pay in case of
restrospective promotion-Consequently, the orders ofthe High Court
and the Tribunal are set aside-Principle ofno work, no pay. DI
y
State ofHaryana and Ors. v. D.P. Gupta and Ors., [1996] 7 SCC
533; A.K Soumini v. State Bank ofTravancore, JT (2003) 8 SC 35
and State ofAndhra Pradesh v. K. V.L. Narasimha Rao and Ors., JT
(1999) 3 SC 205, relied on. E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5128 of
2001.
From the Judgment and final Order dated 17.05.2000 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in C.W. No. 2641 of2000.
F
-\,,. B.B. Singh, Sunita Sharma, D.S. Mahra and Shreekant N. Terdal
for the Appellant.
Anil Kumar Jha and Alka Jha for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered
G
ORDER
~ Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This appeal by Special leave is directed against the judgment and
661 H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.
\ \
662
---(
A order dated 17.5.2000 passed· by the learned Division Bench of the High
Court of Delhi whereby the learned Division Bench upheld the order dated
11th Januruy, 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribtmal, Principal
Bench. None appears for the appellant.
The Tribunal has taken the view that since the respondent herein has
B been granted retrospective promotion from 27.8.1984 he must be paid
arrears of pay and allowances for the higher post for the period 27th
August, 1984 till 5th February, 1992. A.
..,.,
Aggrieved against the order of the Tribunal dated 1ith January,
2000 the Appellant herein filed a writ petition before the High Court and
c the High Court dismissed the writ petition affirming the order of the
Tribunal. Hence the present appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It was argued by
learned counsel for the respondent that when a retrospective promotion
is given to an incumbent normally he is entitled to all benefits flowing
D
therefrom. However, this Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors.
V. D.P. Gupta & Ors., [1996] 7 sec 533 and followed in the case of y \
A.K Soumini v. State Bank ofTravancore JT (2003) 8 SC 35 has taken·
the view that even in case of a notional promotion from retrospective date,
it cannot entitle the employee to arrears of salary as the incumbent has
E not worked in the promotional post. These decisions relied on the principle
of no work no pay. The learned Division Bench in the impugned judgment
has placed reliance on the case of State ofAndhra Pradesh v. K V.L.
Narasimha Rao & Ors., (1999) 3 SC 205. In our view, the High Court
did not examine that case in detail. In fact, in the said judgment the view
F taken by the High Court of grant of salary was set aside by this Court.
.._'>--
Therefore, we arc of the view that in the light of the consistent view taken
by this Court in the abovementioned cases, arrears of salary cannot be
granted to the respondent in view of the principle of no work no pay in
case of retrospective promotion. Consequently, we allow this appeal and
G set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 17.5.2000 passed
by the Division Bench of the High Court as also the order dated 11.1.2000
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principle Bench. )
The appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.
H RP. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.