‘No work, no pay not universal’: Chhattisgarh High Court grants arrears to man denied promotion for 5 years

Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas directed the state to pay the arrears of difference of pay between the posts of deputy commissioner and assistant commissioner to the petitioner.

Entire denial was authorities’ fault: Court

• The Chhattisgarh High Court noted that it was only after this court intervened through the petition and a contempt petition was filed that the respondents initiated proceedings to redress the petitioner’s grievance.
• The court said that due to the authorities’ shortcomings, the respondent was deprived of promotion to the petitioner.
• The court opined that the principle of  ‘no work, no pay’ was not applicable in the case, but the entire denial occurred due to a fault committed by the authorities. 

Court’s direction to state

• The Chhattisgarh High Court said that granting 50 per cent of the arrears of difference of pay between the post of deputy commissioner and the assistant commissioner from the date on which his juniors were promoted till the date of his superannuation, would meet the ends of justice. 
• The respondent state was directed to calculate and pay the arrears, 50 per cent of the difference from July 13, 2011, to December 31, 2016, within a period of four months from the date of this order. 
• If the respondents fail to comply with the stipulated period, the entire amount shall thereafter carry interest at 6 per cent per annum till realisation. 

‘Not entitled to arrears of salary’

Deputy Advocate General Sanjeev Pandey contended that the petitioner had been given promotion retrospectively with consequential benefits, and revised pension and arrears of gratuity had been paid.

He added that the promotion was given on a notional basis, and he was not entitled to any arrears of salary for the said period and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Pandey argued that it is a settled principle of service jurisprudence that where promotion was granted retrospectively on a notional basis, the employee was not entitled to arrears of salary for the period during which he did not actually discharge duties on the promotional post.

‘No work, no pay, not applicable 

Advocate Shriya Jaiswal, for the petitioner, submitted that the principle of “No work, no pay” is not applicable in the present case, as the petitioner was kept away from work for no fault of his own. 

She submitted that due to illegal denial of promotion, the petitioner had suffered substantial monetary loss for the period from July 13, 2011, till December 31, 2016, apart from severe mental harassment and prolonged litigation spanning several years.

It was argued that the petitioner was entitled to full arrears of salary and all consequential benefits on the promotional post of deputy commissioner for the aforementioned period, with an additional compensation of Rs 5 lakh towards the hardship, harassment, and prolonged litigation suffered by him. 

Illegally denied promotion

• The petitioner was working as an assistant commissioner in the Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste Development Department and had attained the age of superannuation on December 31, 2016. 
• As per the grading list, the petitioner ranked above the other respondents, but by the order dated July 13, 2011, the respondents were promoted to the post of deputy commissioner, while he was denied promotion.
• On January 31, 2014, the state government issued an order based on the departmental promotion committee’s recommendations dated July 10, 2012, which noted that the petitioner was given seniority as assistant commissioner retrospectively from September 7, 2006, and was placed above the Respondent no 4 in the seniority list. 
• On July 15, 2014, a proposal was forwarded to the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission for calling a review meeting to consider the case of the petitioner and other eligible officers for promotion to the post of deputy commissioner.
• Pursuant to that, a review DPC meeting was held on February 20, 2015, wherein it was recommended that the petitioner is fit for promotion and was entitled to be placed above respondent number 4 and 5, who were admittedly junior to him. 
• The petitioner, after that, submitted several representations requesting consideration of his case for promotion. 
• The Chhattisgarh High Court passed an order on July 22, 2016, directing the state government to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion.
• When no action was taken by the respondent authority, the petitioner filed a contempt petition, but it was disposed of, stating that there was no specific time frame provided, and his claim was to be considered at the earliest.
• After filing multiple representations and petitions, the petitioner was granted notional promotion on November 29, 2019, retrospectively w.e.f. July 13, 2011, and was only confined to arrears of salary till December 31, 2016.