The respondents have advanced the argument that
the denial of pay and allowances is on the principle of “no
work no pay” and no injustice has been done to the appellant
since he has not actually worked in the promotional post of
Naib Subedar during the aforesaid period. It was submitted
that the benefit of pay and allowances was rightly awarded
w.e.f. 13.11.2000, the date on which the appellant actually
assumed the rank of Naib Subedar but his seniority was
maintained so as to protect his interest in his further
promotions.
12. In normal circumstances when retrospective
promotions are effected, all benefits flowing therefrom,
including monetary benefits, must be extended to an
employee who has been denied promotion earlier. So far as
monetary benefits with regard to retrospective promotion is
concerned that depends upon case to case. In State of
Kerala & Ors. vs. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai, (2007) 6 SCC 524,
this Court held that the principle of “no work no pay” cannot
be accepted as a rule of thumb and the matter will have to be
considered on a case to case basis and in para (4), it was
held as under:-
“… 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 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superseded and he has challenged the same before court or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 the date persons junior to him
were appointed, in that case the court may grant sometimes 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 no pay”
cannot be accepted as a rule of thumb. There are exceptions
where courts have granted monetary benefits also.”
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 811 OF 2007
RAMESH KUMAR ...Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...Respondents
Citation;AIR 2015 SC 2904
R. BANUMATHI, J.
Print Page
the denial of pay and allowances is on the principle of “no
work no pay” and no injustice has been done to the appellant
since he has not actually worked in the promotional post of
Naib Subedar during the aforesaid period. It was submitted
that the benefit of pay and allowances was rightly awarded
w.e.f. 13.11.2000, the date on which the appellant actually
assumed the rank of Naib Subedar but his seniority was
maintained so as to protect his interest in his further
promotions.
12. In normal circumstances when retrospective
promotions are effected, all benefits flowing therefrom,
including monetary benefits, must be extended to an
employee who has been denied promotion earlier. So far as
monetary benefits with regard to retrospective promotion is
concerned that depends upon case to case. In State of
Kerala & Ors. vs. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai, (2007) 6 SCC 524,
this Court held that the principle of “no work no pay” cannot
be accepted as a rule of thumb and the matter will have to be
considered on a case to case basis and in para (4), it was
held as under:-
“… 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 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 the date persons junior to him
were appointed, in that case the court may grant sometimes 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 no pay”
cannot be accepted as a rule of thumb. There are exceptions
where courts have granted monetary benefits also.”
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 811 OF 2007
RAMESH KUMAR ...Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...Respondents
Citation;AIR 2015 SC 2904
R. BANUMATHI, J.
