"No Work No Pay" Not Applicable When Employee Kept Away From Higher Post By Administrative Error: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Punjab & Haryana High Court Single Bench of Justice Sandeep Moudgil held that an employee who is granted retrospective or deemed promotion following wrongful denial of advancement is entitled to full consequential monetary benefits, and the principle of "no work no pay" cannot be invoked against an employee who was kept away from a higher post due to administrative error. The Court allowed a writ petition filed by a government employee in the Food and Supplies Department whose departmental orders acknowledged his entitlement to promotion from the dates his juniors were promoted, yet withheld salary arrears on the ground that he had not actually worked in the promotional positions.
A government employee in the Food and Supplies Department initially joined service on a daily wage basis in 1987, was regularized in 1993, and was subsequently promoted to the post of Clerk and later Sub-Inspector. He contended that certain officials junior to him in service were promoted to the posts of Sub-Inspector and Inspector ahead of him, and he submitted a formal representation seeking promotion from the dates his juniors were elevated, along with consequential benefits.
During the pendency of the writ proceedings, the department examined his claim and granted him deemed dates of promotion across three posts, acknowledging that he had been overlooked. However, the departmental orders expressly denied arrears of pay for the retrospective period, citing the fact that he had not actually discharged duties on the promotional posts.
The petitioner challenged these clauses, arguing that denial of monetary benefits violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The State opposed the claim, relying on the principle of "no work no pay."
The Court recorded that the grant of deemed dates of promotion was itself an acknowledgment that the petitioner was wrongly denied promotion earlier, and that the delay was not attributable to any fault, misconduct, or disqualification on his part but resulted from administrative oversight. It stated that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for a lapse attributable to the employer.
On the principle of "no work no pay," the Court stated that this principle is not an absolute rule, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109, which held that the normal rule has no application where an employee willing to work is kept away by the authorities for no fault of his own.
Relying on State of Kerala v. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai, (2007) 6 SCC 524, the Court recorded that retrospective promotion without financial benefits amounts to empty formality where promotion is delayed due to reasons beyond the employee's control, and quoted: "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 any hard and fast rule. The principle 'no work no pay' cannot be accepted as a rule of thumb."
From Ramesh Kumar v. Union of India, (2015) 14 SCC 335, the Court recorded: "The principle of 'no work no pay' would not be attracted where the respondents were in fault in not 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."
From North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Ram Naresh Sharma, 2021 (3) SCT 538, and Dayanand Chakrawarthy v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2013) 7 SCC 595, the Court further recorded: "If an employee is prevented by the employer from performing his duties, the employee cannot be blamed for having not worked, and the principle of 'no pay no work' shall not be applicable to such employee."
The Court stated that the impugned clauses were mechanical and unsustainable in law as they neither considered the settled legal position laid down by the Supreme Court nor addressed the fact of wrongful denial of timely promotion. It further stated that the State, being a model employer, when it corrects an illegality by granting retrospective promotion, must restore the employee to the same financial position in which he would have been but for the wrongful act.
The Court directed: "The impugned clauses contained in order dated 04.09.2020 (Annexure P-7) and order dated 12.11.2020 (Annexure P-8), denying arrears of pay on the ground that the petitioner had not worked on the promotional posts, are hereby quashed."
"The respondents are directed to grant the petitioner all consequential monetary benefits arising from his deemed promotions as Clerk w.e.f. 09.09.2008, as Sub-Inspector w.e.f. 20.04.2012, and as Inspector w.e.f. 17.06.2016, including arrears of salary and refixation of pay. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition is hereby allowed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate
For the Respondents: Dr. Malvika Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
Case Title: Chander Bhan v. State of Haryana and Anr.
Case Number: CWP-2946-2019
Bench: Justice Sandeep Moudgil
