SUKHDEO PANDEY versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 369 · Decided: 24-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SUKHDEO PANDEY 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
AUGUST 24, 2007 
(C.K THAKKERANDTARUNCHATIERJEE,JJ.) 
B 
Service Law: 
Reinstatement-EDBPM selected for promotion as Postman but could 
not be appointed as the selection was cancelled-Meanwhile a criminal case C 
was filed against him and as a result of departmental proceedings he was 
removed from service-Removal set aside by High Court-Reinstatement 
ordered-Reinstatement made as Postman-Realizing the mistake, Department 
reverting him to post of EDBPM--Held, order of reversion does not call for 
interference-Employee not entitled to arrears of salary for the period he did D 
not work-However, since he worked as Postman for a long period, he may 
be continued to work as Postman and be given salary for the post but on 
his superannuation his pension shall be fixed as EDBPM-Principle of 'no 
work no pay'-Pension. 
The appellant, while working as Extra-Departmental Branch Post Master E 
(EDBPM) was selected through Departmental Promotion Examination for 
promotion to the post of Postman, but on account of some irregularities stated 
to have been committed in conducting the examination, the entire selection 
was cancelled. Thereafter due to a criminal case filed against the appellant, 
he was not allowed to join duty. Later, as a result of the departmental 
proceedings he was removed from service. However, the order of removal was 
quashed by the High Court and the appellant was appointed by order dated 
21.9.1991 as Reserve Postman. Later, the appellant filed an application before 
the Central Administrative Tribunal claiming arrears of salary for the period 
F 
he was not allowed to join the duty. Meanwhile it was detected that the appellant 
instead of being reinstated as EDBPM, was wrongly reinstated by order dated G 
21.9.1991 as Postman, which post he never held earlier; and ultimately by 
order dated 7.3.2003 he was reverted to the post of EDBPM. This order was 
also challenged by the appellant The Tribunal dismissed both the applications. 
The writ petitions filed by the appellant having been dismiss.ed, he filed the 
369 
H 
370 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 9 S.C.R. 
A instant appeal. . 
Partly. allowing .the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. So far as the claim of the appellant to his substantive post of 
EDBPM is concerned, since the order ofremoval was set aside by the High 
B Court, he was entitled.to the benefits as EDBPM. But his grievance that he 
ought to have been continued as Postman which was the promotional post from 
EDBPM, has no: force. Indisputably, the appellant was appointed as EDBPM. 
He had cleared the examination for the promotional cadre of Postman but 
because of irregularities in the selection process, no effect was given to the 
C said selection. It was, therefore, obvious that when reinstatement of the 
appellant was effected, he ought to have been reinstated to the substantive post 
held by him which· was EDBPM. It cannot, therefore, be said that by reverting 
the appellant from the cadre of Postman to the substantive cadre of EDBPM, 
any illegality was committed by the respondents. 
D 
(Para 10 and 12) f374-B-D; 375-B) 
Dr. MS. Mudhol & Anr. v. S.D. Halegkar & Ors., (1993} 3'SCC 591, 
relied on. 
2. After the appellant was reverted from the cadre of Postman.to his 
substantive post of EDBPM, he did not join the duty and did not work though 
E no interim relief was granted by any court in his favour. It was obligatory on 
hiin to report for duty as EDBPM, but he failed to do so. Therefore, he will 
not be paid salary for the period for which he has not worked. The doctrine of 
'no work, no pay' is based·on-justice, equity and good conscience and in 
absence of valid reasons to the contrary; it should be applied:(Para 17) 
F 
3:Though the order passed by the Tribunal and confirmed by the.High 
Court-is not contrary to law or otherwise illegal, on the facts and in the 
circumstances of the~case, the respondents are directed to continue the 
appellant as·Postman on·which post he was reinstate<t about fifteen years back. 
He will now be allowed to work as Postman; He will also be:paid salary as 
G Postman but since the action of the respondent authorities in reverting him 
to his substantive post of EDBPM was strictly in consonance with law, the 
appellant would be entitled·to pensionary and other benefits not as Postman 
but as EDBPM which·post he was holding substantively. 
(Para.16 and 17) (375-G; 376-C, DI 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 

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