LexRAMESH KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015]9 S.C.R. 138 RAMESH KUMAR V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No.811 of 2007) JULY31, 2015 [T. S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] Service Law: C Promotion - Retrospective promotion - denial of pay and allowances in higher rank from the back date, on the basis of principle of 'no work, no pay' - Propriety of- Held: When the employee was granted ante-dated seniority, there was no reason to deny the pay and allowances in the D promotional post from the date w.e.f. which he was granted promotion to the date of his actual promotion - The earlier DPC had wrongly not considered him for promotion - Grant of monetary benefits with regard to retrospective promotion depends upon case to case - The principle of 'no work, no E pay' would not be attracted, where the employer is at fault in not considering the case of the employee, for promotion and not allowing the employee to work on the promotion post - Principle of 'No work, no pay'. F Allowing the appeal, the Court Held: 1. As per the policy of the respondents, an . individual cannot be considered for promotion to the rank of Naib Subedar, if he has earned more than three red ink entries during the entire service and more than G one red ink entry in the preceding five years of service. When the case of the appellant came up for consideration on 01.08.1997, the first punishment/red ink entry had already expired i.e. on 03.06.1997 and only one red ink H entry made on 18.02.1995 was on the record; but the DPC 138 RAMESH KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA& ORS. 139 appears to have erred in ignoring the same. [Para 1 O] A [145-A-C] 2. From the DPC proceedings, it is clear that the respondents took the view that the date of commutation of punishment would be from 03.06.1992, the date on 8 which the punishment was awarded and not on 17 .08.1994, the date on which the punishment was commuted. When the respondents themselves have taken the view that the Order of the Government would be deemed to have taken from the date of original c sentence was passed i.e. 03.06.1992 and not from 17.08.1994, the date on which commutation/remission was granted by the Government, the High Court was not right in holding that the appellant was not eligible to be considered for promotion on 01.08.1997 and the D impugned order cannot be sustained. [Paras 9 and 1 OJ [144-G-H; 145-E-G] 3. When appellant was granted ante-dated seniority w.e.f. 01.08.1997 .alongwith his batch mates, there is no E reason as to why he should be denied pay and allowances in the promotional post as Naib Subedar w.e.f. 01.08.1997 till the date of his actual promotion on 13.11.2000. [Para 10] [145-D-E] 4. So far as monetary benefits with regard to F retrospective promotion is concerned that depends upon case to case. 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. [Para 12] [146- C-D] G State of Kera/a & Ors. vs. EK. Bhaskaran Pillai 2007 (5) SCR 251 : (2007) 6 SCC 524 - relied on. 5. The principle of "no work no pay'' would not be attracted where the respondents were in fault in not H 140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R. A considering the case of the appellant for promotion and not allowing the appellant to work on a post of Naib Subedar carrying higher pay scale. In the facts of the present case, when the appellant was granted promotion w.e.f. 01.01.2000 with the ante-dated seniority from B 01.08.1997 and maintaining his seniority alongwith his batch-mates, it would be unjust to deny him higher pay and allowances in the promotional position of Naib Subedar. [Para 13] [147-D-E] c D Case Law Reference 2007 (5) SCR 251 relied on. Para 12 CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: CivilAppeal No. 811 of2007 From the Judgment and Order dated 02.12.2004 and 18.03.2005 of the High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No.· 6466/2002 and Review Application No. 55/2005 respectively E Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the Appellant. F A. K. Panda, Sanjeev Kumar Das, Anil Katiyar, Manjula Gupta, B. V. Bairam Das for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is the order of the High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No.6466 of 2002 dated 02.12.2004, whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed against the order of denial of pay and allowances G to the appellant for the period from 01.08.1997 till th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.