UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus TARSEM LAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 456 · Decided: 21-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
\~ 
TARSEM LAL AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 21, 2006 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A. JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Pay and allowance-l'laim of from the date of proforma promotion-
C Denial of on the ground that during that period the employee had not 
worked on that post-Held: Since the employee had not worked on the post 
during that period, he was not entitled for the claim on the basis of principle 
of 'no work no pay'-Railway Board Circular dated 15117 September 1964-
Railway Establishment Manual, Volume I-Paragraph 228. 
D 
Respondent-employee filed application before Central Administrative 
Tribunal claiming that he was entitled to pay and allowance from the date on 
which prc..forma promotion was given to him and not from the date of actual 
promotion. Appellant-Government, relying on Railway Board Circular dated 
15/17 September, 1964 and Paragraph 228 of Indian Railway Establishment 
E Manual, Volume I contended that the claim was untenable. Tribunal denied 
the claim of the respondent relying on judgment passed by this Court. Writ 
Petition of the respondent was also dismissed by High Court. Hence the present 
appeal 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: In view of the judgment passed by this Court holding that the 
clause "No arrears on this account shall be payable as he did not actually 
shoulder the duties and responsibilities of the higher posts." in the Railway 
Board Circular dated 15/17 September, 19~ is in consonance with the ruling 
that on principle of 'no work no pay' employees will not be entitled to the 
G higher salary as they have not actually worked in that post, Tribunal and the 
High Court were not justified in granting relief to the respondent. 
(459-G; 460-B( 
Union of India and Ors. v. P.O. Abraham and Ors. order passed by 
Supreme Court in C.A. 8904 of(l994) decided on 13.8.1997; Virender Kumar. 
H 
456 
U.0.1.v.TARSEMLAL(PASAYAT. J.] 
457 
General Manager, Northern Railways, New Delhi v. Avinash Chandra Chadha A 
and Ors .. (1990( 3 SCC 472, relied on. 
Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors .. ( 1995( Supp. 3 SCC 471, 
referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4222 of20Q6. 
B 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.3.2005 of the High Court of 
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 6737/2004. 
T.S. Doabia, Shailendra Sharma, D.S. Mahra and B. Krishna Prasad for 
the Appellants. 
C 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. 
Union of India and its functionaries call in question correctness of the D 
judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High 
Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the present appellants and affirming 
the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, 
Chandigarh (in short the 'CAT'). 
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows : 
Respondent filed the Original Application claiming that he was entitled 
to pay and allowance from the date on which proforma promotion was given 
and not from the date of actual promotion. Appellants relied on circular dated 
15/17 September, 1964 to contend that the claim was untenable. 
E 
F 
According to CAT the only question which was to be decided was 
whether the respondent was entitled for his pay and allowance from August, 
2001 on which date he was actually promoted as M.C.M. or with effect from 
9.9.1997 from which date he has been given promotion on proforma basis. 
Appellants denied him the arrears with effect from 9.9.1997 on the ground that G 
he has not worked on the promotional post during the said period and as 
such he was not entitled for the revised pay from that date. Reliance was 
placed on paragraph 228 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual (in short 
'lREM') Volume I dealing with employees who have lost promotion on account 
of administrative error. It inter alia provides that in such cases the pay 
should be fixed on proforma basis and the enhanced pay was to be allowed H 
458 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A from the date of actual promotion and no arrears on this account was to be 
paid for the past period as he did not actually perform duties and responsibilities 
of the higher post. The Tribunal relying on a decision of this Court in 
Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors., [ 1995] Supp. 3 SCC 471 held that 
the stand was unsustainable. Tribunal's order was assailed before the High 
Court. 
B 
The High Court as noted above dismissed the writ petition r

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