Union Of India v. B.M Jha ., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant challenged an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 11-1-2000, which had directed payment of arrears of pay and allowances to the respondent for the period 27-8-1984 to 5-2-1992 on account of a retrospective promotion. A writ petition filed by the appellant before the Delhi High Court was dismissed on 17-5-2000, affirming the CAT’s decision. The present appeal before the Supreme Court was filed by special leave against the High Court’s judgment.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent's Arguments

A retrospective promotion should ordinarily carry all consequential monetary benefits, including arrears of salary, because the employee is deemed to have been in the higher post from the earlier date.

Appellant's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the appellant's legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
State of Haryana v. O.P. Gupta (1996) 7 SCC 533	Doctrine of “no work, no pay” in cases of notional retrospective promotion.	Relied upon to hold that arrears cannot be granted when the employee has not actually worked in the promotional post.
A.K. Soumini v. State Bank of Travancore (2003) 7 SCC 238	Reaffirmation of the principle that notional promotion does not automatically entitle the employee to back wages.	Cited to reinforce the consistent judicial view against payment of arrears in such circumstances.
State of A.P. v. K.V.L. Narasimha Rao (1999) 4 SCC 181	Scope of monetary benefits flowing from retrospective promotion.	The Court clarified that the High Court had misapplied this decision; in fact, the Supreme Court had set aside the grant of arrears in that case.

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

State of Haryana v. O.P. Gupta (1996) 7 SCC 533

Doctrine of “no work, no pay” in cases of notional retrospective promotion.

Relied upon to hold that arrears cannot be granted when the employee has not actually worked in the promotional post.

A.K. Soumini v. State Bank of Travancore (2003) 7 SCC 238

Reaffirmation of the principle that notional promotion does not automatically entitle the employee to back wages.

Cited to reinforce the consistent judicial view against payment of arrears in such circumstances.

State of A.P. v. K.V.L. Narasimha Rao (1999) 4 SCC 181

Scope of monetary benefits flowing from retrospective promotion.

The Court clarified that the High Court had misapplied this decision; in fact, the Supreme Court had set aside the grant of arrears in that case.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court noted that although a retrospective promotion may conceptually place an employee in a higher post from an earlier date, established precedent consistently denies monetary benefits for periods when the employee did not actually discharge the duties of that post. Relying on State of Haryana v. O.P. Gupta and A.K. Soumini v. State Bank of Travancore, the Court applied the principle of “no work, no pay.” It found that the Delhi High Court had incorrectly invoked State of A.P. v. K.V.L. Narasimha Rao, overlooking the fact that this Court had itself disallowed arrears in that very decision. Consequently, the Court held that the respondent was not entitled to salary arrears for 27-8-1984 to 5-2-1992.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is allowed; the orders of the Delhi High Court dated 17-5-2000 and the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 11-1-2000 are set aside.

Implications: The respondent will not receive any arrears of salary or allowances for the period covered by the retrospective promotion. The decision reinforces the Supreme Court’s settled stance that the principle of “no work, no pay” bars back-wage claims where an employee did not actually serve in the promoted position, and it does not create any new legal doctrine beyond this reaffirmation. No costs were awarded.

Union Of India v. B.M Jha .

Order

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 17-5-2000 passed by the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi whereby the learned Division Bench upheld the order dated 11-1-2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench. None appears for the appellant.

3. The Tribunal has taken the view that since the respondent herein has been granted retrospective promotion from 27-8-1984 he must be paid arrears of pay and allowances for the higher post for the period 27-8-1984 till 5-2-1992.

4. Aggrieved against the order of the Tribunal dated 11-1-2000 the appellant herein filed a writ petition before the High Court and the High Court dismissed the writ petition affirming the order of the Tribunal. Hence, the present appeal.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It was argued by learned counsel for the respondent that when a retrospective promotion is given to an incumbent, normally he is entitled to all benefits flowing therefrom. However, this Court in State of Haryana v. O.P Gupta (1996) 7 SCC 533, (1996) 33 ATC 324 and followed in A.K Soumini v. State Bank of Travancore (2003) 7 SCC 238, JT (2003) 8 SC 35 has taken the view that even in case of a notional promotion from retrospective date, it cannot entitle the employee to arrears of salary as the incumbent has not worked in the promotional post. These decisions relied on the principle of “no work no pay”. The learned Division Bench in the impugned judgment has placed reliance on State of A.P v. K.V.L Narasimha Rao (1999) 4 SCC 181, JT (1999) 3 SC 205. In our view, the High Court did not examine that case in detail. In fact, in the said judgment the view taken by the High Court of grant of salary was set aside by this Court. Therefore, we are of the view that in the light of the consistent view taken by this Court in the abovementioned cases, arrears of salary cannot be granted to the respondent in view of the principle of “no work no pay” in case of retrospective promotion. Consequently, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 17-5-2000 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court as also the order dated 11-1-2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench.

6. The appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.

Civil Appeal No. 5128 of 2001, decided on October 24, 2007

Union Of India v. B.M Jha .

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent's Arguments

Appellant's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Union Of India v. B.M Jha .

Comments