A.K. SOUMINI versus STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 577 · Decided: 14-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A.K. SOUMINI 
A 
v. 
STA TE BANK OF TRA V ANCORE AND ANR. 
AUGUST 14, 2003 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU, DORAISWAMY RAJU AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Promotion-Non-selection/or-Non-selection and the promotion policy 
challenged-High Court held the policy invalid-Supreme Court held the C 
policy as valid but in view of lapse of time due to pendency of the appeal 
candidate granted benefit of promotion-Notional promotion· granted from 
back date-Claim for arrears of salary-Granted by Single Judge of High 
Court-Denial by Division Bench on the principle of "no work no pay"-
On appeal, held since her promotion was only in the nature of a gesture of D 
gratis and not by way of any right, notional promotion is proper-Candidate 
not entitled to arrears of salary. 
Appellant, appointed with respondent-Bank, appeared in written test for 
promotion, but was ultimately not selected. She challenged her non-selectioJt 
and also the promotion policy. Single Judge as well as Division Bench of High E 
Court held promotion policy as not valid and directed her selection. In appeal, 
this Court held the promotion policy valid but keeping in view the lapse of 
time due to the pendency of the appeal and the fact that the appellant had not 
appeared in subsequent test, in the interest of justice benefit of promotion 
was granted to her. 
Respondent-Bank promoted the appellant with retrospective effect giving 
her notional seniority. Appellant filed petition before High Court seeking 
arrears of salary. Single Judge held that she was entitled to get full salary 
from the date of her promotion. Division Bench allowed the appeal of the bank 
F 
and dismissed that of the appellant observing that employer-bank was justified G 
in declining to pay the full salary for the period in respect of which notional 
promotion was given with revision of pay scale, as the case attracted the 
principle of"no work no pay". Hence these appeals. 
Oismis~ing the appeals, the Court 
577 
H 
578 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS !.2003) SUPP. 2 S.CR. 
A 
HELD: The Division Bench properly approached the question in the light 
of the relevant guiding principles and the same could not be said to be either 
arbitrary, unreasonable ~r unsound in law to Warrant interference of this 
Court. The fact that her .non-promotion was legal and there has been no 
unlawful interference with her right to promotion or to serve in the promoted 
B <ategory was obvious a_nd could not be minced over or completely ignored in 
the light of the judgment of this Court, allowing the appeal by the Bank. The 
grant of relief to her, keeping in view the delay merely due to pendency of 
proceedings before court, was more in the nature of a gesture of gratis and 
not by way of any right, to which she was found to be entitled to. Consequently, 
the notional promotion given to her by the Bank with suitable revision of her 
C pay scales itself is ·more than sufficient to moet the requirements, be it either 
in law or in equity. The further claim for payment of arrears as well, is far 
fetched and can have no basis in law. (582-C-FJ 
D 
, State of Haryana and Ors. v. O.P. Gupta and o,.s., (1996) 7 SCC 533, 
relied on. 
· · UnionoflndiaandAnr. v. P. SathikumaranaNairandOrs., (1997) IO 
SCC 663 and State Bank of India and Ors. v. T.J. Paul, )1999) 4 SCC 759, 
distinguished. 
Paluru Ra,;,akrishnaiah v. Union of India, )1989) 2 SCC 541 and 
E Virender Kum;,r, G.M. N. Riys v. Avinash Chandra Chadha, (1990) 3 SCC 
472, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6378-6388 of 
2003. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.3.2000 of the Kerala High Court 
in W.A. Nos. 1378 and I I03 of 1998. · 
K. Sukumaran, Ms. Karthika, S.N. R. Shonker and Ms. Baby Krishnan 
for the Appellant. 
G 
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, A.V. Rangam and A. Rangan.~dhan for the 
Respodents. 
The Judgment of the Court was ·delivered by 
RAJ END RA BABU, J. Leave granted. 
H 
/ 
A.K.SOUMINlv. STATE BANKOFTRAVANCORE [RAJENDRA BABU,!.] 
579 
The appellant, having initially succeeded partially before a [earned Single A 
Judge but lost before a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in W.A. 
No.1378 and 1103 of 1998 has filed the above appeals. The appellant was 
appointed as clerk/typist in the service of the respondent-bank on 28.2.1972.· 
She undertook written' test for promotion to officer - Junior M_aiagement 
Grade (Group A & B) on 20.7.80. Having come out successful, as per the 
procedure required she appeared for an interview on 27

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.