STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. versus E.K. BHASKARAN PILLAI

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 251 · Decided: 17-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. MATHUR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

'i 
STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. 
A 
~ 
v. 
E.K. BHASKARAN PILLAI 
APRIL 17, 2007 
[A.K. MATHUR AND LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] 
B 
Service Law-Promotion-Retrospective promotion-Grant of monetary 
benefits associated therewith-Held, depends upon various facets-Differs 
from case to case-No hard and fast rule can be laid down-Court may or c 
may not grant full benefits with retrospective effect-On facts, where 
Respondent was promoted with retrospective effect i.e. from I 5. 9. I 96 I and 
he filed a petition dated I 5. 6. I 972, the Court was justified in granting 
benefit from the date of the petition and not from the date of promotion. 
As per the directions given by the Court, the case of Respondent was D 
considered and it was found that persons junior to him were promoted and he 
was wrongly denied promotion. Respondent was promoted from retrospective 
.. 
effect i.e. 15.9.1961 but he was not paid the benefit of promotion in terms of 
arrears of salary. Single Judge of High Court did not give him the monetary 
-
benefit of promotional post from retrospective effect in terms of arrears of 
salary. In the review application, the benefit was given from the date he filed E 
application before the Court i.e.15.6.1972 and not with effect from 15.?.1961 
as prayed by him. The order passed in review was upheld by the Division Bench . 
• 
In the present appeal it was contended by the State that grant of 
retrospective benefit on promotional post cannot be given to the incumbent F 
- --'! 
when he has not worked on the said post and therefore Respondent was not 
entitled to any benefit on the promotional post from 15.6.1972. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. So far as the situation with regard to monetary benefits with G 
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 
251 
H 
252 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 5 S.C.R. 
A 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 
B 
appointed, in that case the Court may grant sometime 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 
>---
-.4 
any hard and fast rule. The principle 'no work no pay' cannot be accepted as 
c a rule of thumb. There are exceptions where courts have granted monetary 
benefits slso. [Para 41 [255-B-DI 
1.2. However, so far as pre~ent case is concerned, as per directions given 
by the Court, Respondent's case was considered and it was found that persons 
junior to him were appointed and he was wrongly denied. Therefore, the 
D Respondent was promoted from retrospective effect i.e. 15.9.1961 but he was 
not paid the benefit of promotion in terms of arrears of salary. Therefore, he 
approached the Court and Single Judge did not give him the monetary benefit 
~ ' 
of the promotional post from retrospective effect in terms of arrears of salary. 
In the review application, the benefit was given from the date he filed O.P. No. 
E 585of1975 i.e. 15.6.1972. This arrears to be reasonable. The Respondent 
did not approach the Court for the back wages from 15.9.1961 but he filed a 
petition dated 15.6.1972 and the Court granted the benefit from the date of 
filing of the petition before the Court i.e. 15.6.1972. The incumbent in the 
meanwhile has retired on 31. 7.1980. Therefore, looking to the facts and 
circumstances of the case, the view taken by the High Court appears to be 
F justified and then. is no ground to interfere in it. [Para 51 [255-E-GI 
'!'- -
Paluru Ramkrishnaiah & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., [19891 2 SCC 
541; Virender Kumar, G.M, Northern Railways v. Avinash Chandra Chadha 
& Ors., [199013SCC472; State of Haryana & Ors. v. O.P. Gupta & Ors., 
G 
[1996) 7 SCC 533; A. K. Soumini v
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.