Holding

The respondents are not entitled to promotions beyond Class‑II nor to retrospective higher emoluments, and the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction.

Summary

The case concerned Traffic Apprentices in the Indian Railways who claimed that their seniority in the newly formed cadre of "Relieving Transportation Assistants" had not been fixed according to the 25:75 quota‑rota rule, and that they were therefore entitled to promotions beyond Class‑II and to retrospective payment of higher emoluments. The Delhi High Court had set aside a dismissal for laches and ordered a revised seniority list; the Railways prepared several lists (1976, 1983) and the Central Administrative Tribunal directed that promotions be made in accordance with the 1983 list. The Tribunal later held that the respondents were entitled to promotions to Class‑II, Class‑I and Junior Administrative Grade with retrospective pay, a view the Supreme Court rejected, holding that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction and that the respondents were not entitled to such promotions or retrospective salaries because they had not actually performed the higher duties. The appeal by the Railways was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the respondents are entitled to promotions in posts above Class‑II service as a logical consequence of the revised seniority list.
Whether the respondents are entitled to receive emoluments of higher posts with retrospective effect, invoking the principle of "no work no pay".

Subjects

service lawrailwaysenioritypromotionquota rulerota ruledeemed promotionretrospective payno work no paytribunal jurisdictionclass III serviceclass IIclass I

Judgment

VIRENDER KUMAR, GENERAL MANAGER, NORTHERN
A
RAILWAYS, NEW DELHI
I v.
~-- AVINASH CHANDRA CHADHA AND ORS.

APRIL 25, 1990
B
[LAUT MOHAN SHARMA AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.]

.,...- Service Law-Railways-Class III Service-Traffic Apprentices
... -Recruitment of-25% by direct recruitment and 75% by promotion to
departmental officials called Rankers-Merger of sources of recruitment
and constitution of a single unified cadre of "Relieving Transportation
·r Assistants"-Seniority and promotion-Initial claim before High Court
c
~'
confined to seniority and promotion in Class-III service-Railways
working out promotions upto Class-II service-Concerned employees.
...,.r· gaining substantially-Held employees not entitled to further promo-
lions in Class-I as a matter of right.
D
Service Law-Deemed promotion-Payment of emoluments on
higher posts with retrospective effect-Held entitlement to higher grades_
on account of deemed promotions on the basis of quota and rota rule is
inequitable and irrational-Principle of "no work no pay"-Held
applicable.
/ The respondent-employees. are Traffic Apprentices belonging to
E

Class-III Railway service which has four grades carrying different pay-
scales. Above Class-III posts, are Class-II and Class-I posts. The entire
Class-II service was filled by promotion by selection from Class-III
service. The Class-III service in the Traffic and Transportation Depart-
L ment consisted not only of Traffic Apprentices but also of other
categories. However, the promotion to Class-II post was not made
exclusively from Class-III service of the said Department, but the incum-
F

)_
bents of Class-III service in the Commercial Department were also
entitled to be considered for promotion. Consequently, a combined
seniority list of Class-III service both of the Traffic and Transportation
Department as well as the Commercial Department, was maintained. G
The promotions to further posts, viz., to Class-I posts were thereatler
made from the incumbents of Class-II posts. In Class-I service, 60 per
cent posts were filled by direct recruitment and 40 per cent by promo-
>----- tion from Class-II service.

The appointment to the posts of Traffic Apprentices was by direct H

769
770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990) 2 S.C.R.

recruitment to the extent of 25% and this quota was to be carried
A
forward in the case of shortfaU in any particular year. The remaining
75% of the vacancies were earmarked to other departmental officials
for promotion who were caUed rankers. Subsequently, both the sources
of recruitment were merged and a new single unified cadre of "Reliev-
ing Transportation Assistants" was constituted.
B
The respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court chaUeng.
ing the seniority list in the afOresaid newly constituted cadre on the
ground that their seniority in the newly constituted cadre was not cor-
rectly rixed according to quota rota rule of 25:75 either because the
quota rule was not observed properly or the unfilled vacancies in the
25% quota reserved for them were not carried forward since 1954
.,.....
.
c onwards.

A single judge of the High Court rejected the petition on the
ground oflaches.

D On appeal, the Division Bench set aside the decision of the single
judge on the question of laches and directed the Railway Administra-
tion to draw a revised seniority list.

Against the decision of the Division Bench, the Railways preferred
a Special Leave Petition in this Court which was dismissed. Accordingly,
E the Railways prepared a fresh seniority list in 1976. Since the said
seniority list look care of the grievances only of the employees who were
parties to the petition, some of the Traffic Apprentices filed an applica-
tion before the Central Administrative Tribunal for a direction to quash
the seniority list of 1976 and to prepare a fresh seniority list. 1n the
meanwhile pursuant to the directions of the High Court the Railways
F prepared a fresh seniority list in 1983 superseding the seniority list of
1976. The Tribunal disposed of the application by its order dated June
25, 1986 by directing that the seniority list of 1983 shall be acted upon,
and that the confirmations and promotions be made on the basis of that
list. Consequently the Railways worked out the promotions upto and
inclnsive of Class II posts.
G
Subsequently the respondent filed a contempt petition before the
Tribunal contending that full effect had not been given to its judgment A
dated June 25, 1986. The Tribnnal by its order dated 14th September, ·
1986 held that the respondents are entitled to further promotions to
Class II and Class I; and are entitled to emoluments on such higher
H posts with retrospective effect. Hence this appeal by the Railways
VIRENDER KUMAR v. A.C. CHADHA 771

against tne Tribunal's order dated 14th September, 1986. A
... I
~__..... -
Allowing the appeal, this Court,

HELD: I. The Tribunal has gone beyond the scope of the original
petition while dealing with the contempt petition. The promotions to
B
Class-II and above were not the subject matter of the writ petition
before the High Court, and in its direction the High Court said nothing
..,,... about the promotions to Class-II service. However, the appellant-
~

Railways worked out the promotions to Class-II service on the basis of
the new seniority list of class-III service of the _year 1983 under which
-;... the respondents have gained subslantially. Therefore, the respondents
are not entitled to claim as a matter of right promotions to any higher c
posts. This Court, however, does not desjre to make any observations
..,..,..... which will come in their way if the Union Public Service Commission is
inclined to look into the matter. [7800-G]
~
2. The entitlement of the resi>OJldents to the higher grades in ClaSs-
D
Ill posts as per the directions of the High Court was on the basis of
quota and rota rule, which in itself is both inequitable and irrational.
Time and again, the rule has been criticised on account of the absurd
result to which it leads, viz., the deemed appointments have to be given
to the concerned employees even from the dates when they were not
/ in service and probably when they were still in their schools and
colleges. [780H; 781A-BJ E

In the instant case, this is the situation with respect to some of
the respondents. The quota and ropi rule had to be worked out from the
year 1954 as per the directions of the High Court and the Tribunal.
There is, therefore, neither equity nor justice in favour of the respon-
F
dents to award them emoluments of the higher posts with retrospective
effect. l781B-CJ

P.S. Mahal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1984] 3 SCR 847,
held inapplicable.
G
2.1 On the principle of "no work no pay", the respondents will
not also be entitled to the higher salary as they have not actually worked
in the said ppsts. [781F]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2013
of 1990.
H

'
772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

From the Judgment and Order dated 14.9.1988 of the Central
A
Administrative Tribunal, Delhi in C.C.P. No. 17 of 1987 in T. 246 of
1985:
--
Anil Dev Singh, C.V.S. Rao, T.C. Sharma and B.K Pershad
for the Appellant.
B
Subodh Markandeya, W.A. Nomani, G. Seshagiri Rao, A.K.
Raina, Mrs. Chitra Markandeya, G.D. Gupta and Ashok K. Mahajan
for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c <··
SAWANT,J. Leavegranted.

2. The appeal is filed by the General Manager, Northern Rail-
ways against the decision dated 14th September, 1988 of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi.
D
3. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellant-Railways
against the impugned order, it is necessary to state the relevant facts in
brief. Respondent-employees who are Traffic Apprentices belonged
to Class-III Service which has four grades, and the four grades carry
different pay-scales as follows: >:
E
(i) Grade-I Rs.25G-380
(ii) Grade-II Rs.335-425
(iii) Grade-III Rs.370-475
(iv) Grade-IV Rs.45G-575
F
The promotion to the alternate grade in the said four grades is by
selection. However, the appointments to all the four grades is by
promotion. Above Class-III posts, are Class-II and Class-I posts.
Class-I posts are in Junior Scale grade, Senior Scale grade, Junior
Administrative Grade and Senior Administrative Grade. Th!' entire
G Class-II service is filled by promotion by selection from Class-III
service. In Class-I service, 60 per cent posts are filled by direct recruit-
ment and 40 per cent by promotion from Class-II service. The recruit-
ment as well as promotion .to Class-I is through the Union Public
Service Commission ('UPSC' for short). All these posts are available
as a promotion avenue to the incumbents of Class-III posts. Class-III
._A.
-
H
service in the Traffic and Transportation Department consists not only
VIRENDER KUMAR v. A.C. CHADHA [SAWANT, J.] 773

of Traffic Apprentices but also of other categories. However, the
I A
promotion to Class-II post is not made exclusively from Class-III
-·· service of Traffic and Transportation Department. The incumbents of
Class-III. service in Commercial Department are also entitled to be
considered for promotion to Class-II posts. Hence, a combined senio-
rity list of Class-III service both in the Traffic and Transportation
Department as well as the Commercial Department, is prepared. The B
· promotions to further posts, viz., to Class-I posts and to the posts of
-r- Junior Administrative Grade are thereafter made from the incumbents
of the Class-II posts.

4. It has further to be noted that the appointments to the posts of
Traffic Apprentices is by direct recruitment to the extent of 25 per cent
of the annual vacancies in the posts of Section Controllers who are in c
the grade of Rs.200-300 (PS) and in other posts in the same cadre in
.,./ the Yard and Station categories. This was according to the scheme
prepared by the Railway Board for improving control organisations on
the Railways. The Traffic Apprentices thus directly recruited are, on
completion of the training, first absorbed as Assistant Movement D
Inspectors etc. in the grade of Rs.150-225 and are eligible for promo-
tion to the grade of Rs.200-300 (PS)/Rs.250-380 (AS) in the normal
manner after selection as Section Controllers, Station Masters,
Assistant Station Masters, Yard Masters etc. provided they complete
/ at least one year's service in the grade of Rs.150-225, Such promotions
are, however, to be considered against 25 per cent of the annual vacan- E
cies. The Railway Board had further clarified the position that 25 per
cent ·of the total annual vacancies in the grade of Rs.200-300 (PS)/
Rs.250-380 (AS) were to be earmarked for Traffic Apprentices, and if
during any particular year it was not found possible to utilise this quota
l fully on account of sufficient number of Traffic Apprentices being not
eligible for promotion (owing to their not having completed one year's F
I sc;:rvice in the grade of Rs.150-225), the deficit was to be carried for-
~ ward to the next selection. By their further letter of December 18, ·
1963, the Railway Board directed that with immediate effect, the
Traffic Aprentices on successful completion of the three years' train-
ing, should be straightaway brought on the scale of Rs.200-300 (PS)/
Rs.250-380 (AS) instead of being first absorbed in the scale of Rs.150- G
225 (PS)/Rs.205-270 (AS) as prevalent then.

A_ Thus,· it would be clear that Traffic Apprentices were to be
directly recruited to fill vacancies to the extent of 25 per cent of the
vacancies and'the posts of Section Controllers etc. After recruitment,
they were to be imparted three years' special training and thereafter H
774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

A they were required to serve tor one year in the grade of Rs.150-225/
Rs.205-270 after which they were considered for selection to the grade
of Rs.200-300 (PS)/Rs.250-380 (AS). From 1963, they were to be
straightaway absorbed in the grade of Rs.200-300/Rs.250-380 after
completion of their training period of three years, but without having
to qualify through Selection Board first and without the condition of
B one year's service. The Traiffc Apprentices were thus to fill vacancies
to the extent of 25 per cent. This quota had to be carried forward in
case of shortfall in any particular year, and the remaining 75 per cent of
the vacancies were earmarked tor promotion to other departmental
officials who were called rankers. After both the sources of recruit-
ment merged in the scale of Rs.200-300/Rs.250-300, a single unified
cadre known as "Relieving Transportation Assistants" stood
c constituted.

5. It appears that the respondent's grievance in the writ petition
filed before the Delhi High Court was that their seniority in the cadre
of Relieving Transportation Assistants was not correctly fixed accord-
D ing to the quota rule of 25:75, either because the quota rule was not ..
observed properly or the unfilled vacancies in the 25 per cent quota
reserved for them were not carried forward from 1954 onwards.
Hence, they wanted their seniority list as Traffic Apprentices to be
recast according to quota and rota rule, and the seniority list which was
prepared allegedly contrary to the said rule, quashed. The learned
E Single Judge had rejected the petition on the ground that they had
approached the Court too late and, therefore, their petition suffered
from !aches. The Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 220 of
1972 did not agree with the learned Single Judge and decided the
matter on merits, and gave the finding that the Northern Railways had
for the first time communicated by their letter of December 26, 1967 to
F all the Divisional Superintendents that it was decided that the seniority
of Traffic Apprentices apointed prior to December 18, 1963 would be
determined from the date of their promotion to the grade of Rs.250-
380 and not according to their quota against the vacancies which
occurred from 1.4.1954 onwards, the date from which the direct recruit-
ment of the Traffic Apprentices was permitted. The Court held that
G according to the correct interpretation of the various letters of the
Railway Administration, Traffic Apprentices were to be assigned
seniority, vis-a-vis rankers (promotees) according to their roster posi-
tion, taking into account the positions reserved for them, viz., 25 per
cent of the actual annual vacancies with effect from 1.4.1954 carried
forward in subsequent years. The Court also held that the Railway
H Administration subsequently modified its instructions contained in
VIRENDER KUMAR v. A.C. CHADHA [SAWANT, J.] 775

their letter of December 26, 1967 and issued another letter on April
I 19, 1968 stating that the Traffic Apprentices would be deemed to A
have been promoted from the dates they were eligible provided vacan-
cies were available in the particular year for their absorption and that
their interests would be protected by giving benefit of proforma fixa-
tion of pay etc. A further letter of December, 18, 1968 thereafter
followa:rd from the headquarters of the Northern Railways in which it B
was made clear that the seniority had to be fixed with reference to the
dates from which the Traffic Apprentices would have been promoted
in the grade of Rs.250-380 had the quota of the vacancies from 1954
onwards always been calculated correctly, i.e., the vacancies from
1954 onwards should always have been taken into account to work out
25 per cent quota for the Traffic Apprentices. On these findings, the
Division Bench stated as follows: c
"We may state here that all the Rankers who are likely to
be affected by the decision in this case are partv respon-
dents. No right of any innocent third party is involved in the
case. We are ·also not quashing any rule execitive instruc· D
tion or letter of the Railway Administration or any senio-
rity list issued by the earlier than February 1971. The
Supreme Court has not laid down any rigid rule of limita-
tion in entertaining a writ petition under Article 32 or
/ Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme
Court was pleaseo m observe that it will almost always be E '
proper for the court to hold that it is unreasonably delayed
if the writ petition is filed beyond the period of limitation
prescribed for a similar civil action. Thus, if there are any
exceptional facts and :ircumstances even the delay beyond
the period of limitation prescribed for a civil action for the
remedy may be reasonable or justified and the writ petition F
may still be entertained. The Court may, however, be
reluctant to entertain such writ petitions but that does not
mean that the court has no jurisdiction. If we are right in
holding that the cause of action arose in February 1971, or
even earlier in April 1968, then there is no question of any
delay. But, if we are not, even then on the facts and G
circumstances of the case, as discussed above, we have not
been able to pursuade ourselves to agree with the learned
single Judge that the writ petition is enormously delayed.
By issuing the writ of mandamus in this case, we are only
setting at rest the uncertainty and disparity which is prevail-
ing in the various divisions of the Northern Railway in the H
776 SUPREME COURT REPOR~ 119901 2 s.c.R.
matter of fixation of inter se seniority of Traffic Apprenti·
ces and Rankers. The Railway Administration have
themselves admitted that in Allahabad division of Nort-
hern Railway, Seniority has been granted to Traffic
Apprentices according to their quota against the vacancies
which occurred from 1.4. l954 onwards. In case of conimer-
cial apprentices who are similarly situated seniority has
been assigned vis-a-vis remain according to their quota on
the basis of their roster positions, 1, 5, 9 etc. There is no
reason why the appellants should be deprived 0f what is
legally due to them even if they have approached this Court
after some delay.
c For the reasons stated above, the Letters Patent Appeal is
accepted, the judgment of the learned single judge on
question No. 1 is set aside and reversed and we hold that
the writ petition was not belated and was not liable to
dismissal on the ground of )aches. The finding on question
0 No.2, having been upheld by us, the appellants, are en-
titled to the grant of writ of mandamus ditecting respon-
dents 1 to 3 to fix the seniority of Traffic Apprentices, in
the ligltt of the observations made by the learned single
Judge and as upheld by us. The seniority list, Annexure
E attached to the writ petition is quashed. The respondent
E Railway AdmVtlstration shall draw the seniority list within
3 months from today 1111d proceed to make confirmations
and/or further promotions in the higher grades in accor-
dance with the law, rules and orders in force from time to
time. In the circumstances of the case we leave the parties
to bear their own costs."

This decision of the Division Bench is of July 30, 1975. Against this
decision the Railways preferred a special leave petition which was
dismissed. Thereafter, the Railways prepared a fresh seniority list in
1976. It appears that this seniority list took care of the grievances only
of the employees who were parties to the petition. Against the said
G seniority list, therefore, some of the Traffic Apprentiees filed a writ
petition being Writ Petition No. 948 of 1976 challenging the seniority.
That writ petition was transferred to the Tribunal and numbered as
T.A. No. 246 of 1985. It appears that in the meanwhile in 1983, the
Railways, in compliance with the judgments delivered by the High
1 Courts of Allahabad and Punjab & Haryana prepared a fresh seniority
'H list, and the Tribunal disposed of the transfer petition (TA No. 246 of
VIRENDER KUMAR v. A.C. CHADHA [SAWANT, J.] 777

1985) by order dated June 25, 1986. By this order, the Tribunal
I A
observed that the application before the Tribunal was to direct the
respondent-Railways (the appellant herein) to quash the impugned
seniority list, i.e., the senioritv list of 1976 and to prepare a fresh
seniority list and to make the confirmations and promotions in aCcot.
dance with the fresh seniority list. The Tribunal observed that that
relief had already been granted by the Delhi High Court in LPA No. B
220 of 1972 by its decision which is already referred to above. Hence,
no fresh directions were necessary. The Tribunal also found that a
fresh seniority list had been prepared in 1983 in pursuance of the
directions given by the High Court. It appears further that since the
seniority list was not prepared within three months as directed by the
High Court and according to respondent No. 8 in that application
before the Tribunal, the seniority list was also not in conformity with
c
the other directions contained in the High Court judgment, a contempt
petition was filed before the High Court a1ld the same was pending
before it. The Tribunal, therefore, stated that it expressed lio opinion
as regards the validity or otherwise of the· senio.rity list prepared in
pursuance of the High Court's directions. The Tribunal also made it 0
clear that unless otherwise ordered by the competent authority or the
High Court, as the case may be, the seniority list prepared in
pursuance of the directions of the High Court shall be acted upon and:

"the confirmations and promotions made on the basis of
that list within a period of four months .from the date of the E
receipt of this order. Further, promotions shall be made
strictly in accordance with the list prepared in 1983 in
pursuance of the directions of the High Court in LPA NO.
220 of 1972."

6. It appears, therefore, that the Railways had prepared a F
seniority list of 1983 in pursuance of the directions of the Delhi High
Court in LPA No. 220 of 1972 decided on July 30, 1975. The grievance
of the petitioners in TA No. 246 of 1985 (Writ Petition No. 948 of
1976) was against the seniority list of 1976 and since that seniority list
was superseded by 1983 list which the Tribunal observed was in
pursuance of the High Court's directions, nothing survived in the grie- G
vance of the applicants there (viz., Chadha and others in that
.
·-"---
... application).

7. It further appears that according to the statement made on
behalf of the appellant-Railways, the Railways had already worked
out_ the promotions upto and_ inclusive of Oass-11 posts by 14th H
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

February, 1988. However, the applicants, Chadha and others in TA
A No. 246 of 1985 filed a contempt petition being CCP No. 17 of 1987
before the Tribunal making a grievance that full effect had not been
given to the judgment dated June 25, 1986 of the Tribunal in TA No.
246 of 1985. On that application, the Tribunal passed the impugned
order of September 14, 1988, which is the subject matter of the present
B appeal. The Tribunal has observed that the full consequences of the
judgment of the Tribunal were spelt out by the General Manager of
the Railways in his letter of July 30, 1982 forwarded to the Railway •."
Board. The Tribunal then set out the said consequences as contained
in General Manager's letter and observed that the General Manager
had correctly appreciated the consequences of the directions of the
High Court and of the Tribunal. The Tribunal then stated that, how- -(.-
C ever, in implementing the order, the Railways did not give effect to the
said judgments. The Tribunal then directed that the seniority list pre-
pared on the basis of the panels of 1972-73 and 1978-79 for promotion
to Class-II posts should be revised. We are not concerned here with
the said directions. However, the Tribunal observed further that the
D Railways' contention that the earlier direction of the Tribunal did not
entitle the petitioners, i.e., Chadha and others to be considered for
promotion to Class-II or Class-I or Junior Administrative Grade was
not correct and the same was contrary to its order as well as to the
implications of the said order spelt out by the General Manager him-
self. The Tribunal then went on to observe as follows:
E
" ..... When the Tribunal had directed not only confuma-
tion and promotion be made in accordance with the revised
seniority list but also directed further promotions to be
made on that basis, it was the duty of the respondent not
only to give promotion in Class-III but also to give further
F promotion to Class-II, Class-I and Junior Administrative
Grade. Of course, these promotions have to be given in
accordance with the rules with effect from the date when
the juniors were given promotion. The petitioners should
have also been considered and promoted to Class-II, Class-
1 or Juniors Administrative Grade just as their juniors were
G considered and promoted. Further inclusion in the panel of
1978-79 cannot, therefore, be insisted upon since they have
already qualified.

4. After the above clarification, we do not think that
there would be any further difficulty in implementing the
H order and in granting promotion to Shri Chadha and Shri
VIRENDER KUMAR v. A.C. CHADHA [SAWANT, J.) 779

I Sandhu in respect of whom alone this petition is pressed.
A
-· 5. It is stated that although the implications were cor-
rectly understood by the Genral Manager, even where the
orders were implemented to a certain extent, no arrears
have been paid. It is hereby clarified that on such promo-
tion, they would also be entitled to payment of arrears. The B
order of the Tribunal in T-246/85 (sic) as further clarified
hereinabove shall be implemented accordingly and comp-
liance reported to the . Tribunal within six weeks from
today."

The Tribunal also kept the matter before it on October 31, 1988,
and the Special Leave Petition giving rise to the present appeal was c
filed against the said decision of the Tribunal.

8. Two additional facts need be stated. The combined seniority
list which was prepared in 1983 of Class-III posts for promotion to
Class-II posts was finalised in March 1987 and was made the basis of D
the postponed selection to Class-II service as per orders of the Tri-
bunal and panel was issued on 13 .3. 1987. Thereafter, on the basis of
orders passed by the Tribunal on 9 .12.1987, the Traffic Apprentices
who became eligible for promotion in the firsfbatch after revision of
seniority were considered by a Review Departmental Promotion Com-
mittee and interpolated in the Class-II panels of 1972-73 and 1975-76. E
As a result, the seniority of the personnel from the Commercial
Department was affected since direct recruit-Traffic Apprentices from
the Traffic and Transportation Department were given seniority
according to the quota and rota rule from 1954 onwards. Hence, M/s.
A.P. Chowdhary and K.N. Saxena, officers belonging to the Com-
mercial Department approached the Tribunal by thelf ·applications F
Nos. 360 of 1988 and 936 of 1989 respectively, challenging the new
seniority list, and also on the ground that they were not parties to the
earlier proceedings.

9. It further appears that three of the respondents, Chadha,
Sandhu and Malik filed an application before the Tribunal making a G
grievance that they were not given their due promotion. That applica-
tion is also pending before the Tribunal.

10. It also appears that the Departmental Promotion Committee
prepared two fresh panels-the first panel wasfor promqtions to the
posts which were vacant between 1972-73 and 1975-76 and the second H
780 SUPREME COIJRT REPORTS {1990) 2 S.C.R.

for the vacant posts for the year 1978-79. In the second panel, KN
A Saxena stands selected.

11. In this appeal, we are concerned with two limited issues,
-
viz., (i) whether in the context of the history of the litigation and the
decisions and directions of the High Court and the Central Adminis-
B trative Tribunal, the respondents should be given promotions in all
posts above Class-II service as a logical corollary to their new ranking
in the revised seniority list of 1983, and (ii) whether on such promo-
tions being given, they should be paid emoluments of such higher posts
with retrospective effect. We have stated that we are concerned with
the promotions of the respondents in the posts above Class-II service
because, as stated earlier, the appellant-Railways have already worked
c out their promotions in Oass-II service. There is, therefore, no dis-
pute with regard to the respondents' promotions in Class-II service.
However, the dispute still survives with regard to their entitlement to
the emoluments in Class-II service with retrospective date.

D 12. As regards the promotion to posts above Class-II service, we
find that initially when the petitioners approached the court, their
grievance was with regard to their seniority in and promotions to the
grades in Class-II service. The High Court had also in its direction said
nothing about the promotions to Class-II service. However, as stated
earlier, the appellants have worked out the promotions to Class-II
E service on the basis of the new seniority list of Oass-III service of the
year 1983. The respondents, therefore, have gained substantially
since, as stated earlier, the promotions to Class-II and above were not
the subject matter of the writ petition before the High Court. We are
afraid the Tribunal has gone beyond the scope of the original petition
while dealing with the contempt petition. The respondents, therefore,
F are not entitled to claim in these proceedings as a matter of right
promotions to any higher posts. We, however, do not desire to make
any observations which will come in their way if the UPSC is_ inclined
to look into the matter. In that case the UPSC may constitute review
Departmental Promotional Committee and give them proforma pro-
motions and seniority in the promotional posts from the relevant
G years, if they are otherwise eligible to the same. We say nothing more
on the subject.

13. As regards the emoluments of nigher posts with retrospec-
tive effect, we find that the High Court had categorically denied the
same to the respondents even on the basis of their claim to higher
H grades in Class-III posts. Further, even the entitlement-of the respon-
\'!RENDER KUMAR v. A.C. CHADHA-lSAWANT, J.j 181

dents to the higher grades in Class-III posts as per the directions .of the A
-· High Court was on the basis of the quota and rota rule whichin itself is
both inequitable and irrational. Time and again, the rule has been
criticised on account of the absurd result .to which it leads, viz., the
deemed appointments have to be given to the .concerned .employees
even from the dates when they were not in service and probably when
they were still in their schools and colleges. We are informed across
the Bar that this is the situation even with respect to some of the
respondents herein. The quota and rota rule had to be worked out in
the present case from the year 1954 as per the direction of the High
Court and the Tribunal. There is, therefore, neither equity nor justice
in favour of the respondents to award them emoluments of the higher
posts with retrospective effect. It is for this reason that we are of the c
view that the decisions of this Court such as in P.S. Mahal.& Ors. v.
Union of India & Ors., [1984] 3 SCR 847 directing the payment of
higher emoluments with retrospective effect on account of the deemed
promotions of earlier dates will not be applicable to the facts of the
present case and have to be distinguished.
D
It is true that the appellant-Railways had failed to give correct
effect to the decision dated July 30, 1975 of the High Court in LPA No.
220 of 1972, and had kept the matter hanging till this day for no fault of
the respondents. The High Court by its said decision had directed the
/ appellant-Railways to prepare a seniority list within three months from
E
the date of the decision, and also to proceed to make further promO-
tions in the higher grades in accordance with law, rules and orders in
force from time to time. But it is equally true .that during all these
years the higher posts were not vacant and were manned by others and
the appellant-Railways had paid the incumbents concerned the emolu-
ments of the said posts. The respondents have not actUally worked in
the said posts and, therefore,· on the principle of "no work no pay" F
they will not be entitled to the higher salary. Hence, we give no direc-
tions in this behalf and leave it to the appellant to give such relief as
they may deem fit.

14. The directions given above would be subject· to the petitions
which are already pending before the Central Administrative Tri- ·G
bunal, New Delhi. The appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as
to costs.

T.N.A. Appeal allowed.