Union of India v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: A.K. Mathur
Markandey Katju
Judgment Date: 2007-10-24
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed. No order as to costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; Tribunal order and High Court decision granting arrears set aside; no work, no pay principle applied; no order as to costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Union of India

Respondents

State of Haryana and Ors.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• B.B. Singh
• Sunita Sharma
• D.S. Mahra
• Shreekant N. Terdal

Counsels for Respondents

• Anil Kumar Jha
• Alka Jha

Case Synopsis & Summary

This appeal arises from a Delhi High Court decision and a Central Administrative Tribunal order regarding arrears on retrospective promotion in government service. The appellant, Union of India, challenges a Tribunal order directing payment of arrears of pay and allowances from the date of a notional retrospective promotion (27 August 1984) until 5 February 1992. The Tribunal had held that the respondent who received a retrospective promotion should be paid arrears for the period in which the official served in the promoted post. The Delhi High Court upheld this order, and the matter reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, applying a consistent line of precedents, held that arrears cannot be granted where a promotion is retrospective because the employee did not actually work in the higher post. The Court cited State of Haryana v. D.P. Gupta, A.K. Soumini v. State Bank of Travancore and State of Andhra Pradesh v. K.V.L. Narasimha Rao, noting that notional promotions do not automatically entitle an employee to arrears, and reiterated the principle of no work, no pay. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court and Tribunal orders, and held that the employee cannot demand arrears on the basis of retrospective promotion. The decision clarifies the limits of retrospective promotions and upholds financial prudence by applying the no-work-no-pay doctrine.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

No work, no pay

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that a retrospective/promotion does not automatically entitle an employee to arrears of pay and allowances for the period prior to actual promotion; arrears should not be granted in view of the long-standing ‘no work, no pay’ principle. The government seeks to uphold the consistency of precedents that notional promotions do not automatically yield arrears, and that the Tribunal and High Court erred in awarding retrospective arrears.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent argued that when a retrospective promotion is granted, the incumbent is ordinarily entitled to all benefits flowing therefrom, including arrears of salary for the period in the promoted post; reliance is placed on the view that notional promotion carries the benefits and should be paid.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Haryana and Ors. v. D.P. Gupta and Ors.	[1996] 7 SCC 533	Positive	Cited to support the principle that notional/retrospective promotions do not entitle the employee to arrears; reinforces no work, no pay.
A.K Soumini v. State Bank of Travancore	JT (2003) 8 SC 35	Positive	Cited as authority for the no-arrears principle in retrospective promotions.
State of Andhra Pradesh v. K. V. L. Narasimha Rao and Ors.	JT (1999) 3 SC 205	Positive	Cited; High Court’s salary grant was set aside; supports no arrears principle.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

_)_ .,....... \ _y·_ UNION OF INDIA "· B.M.JHA OCTOBER 24, 2007 # [A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KATJU,JJ.) _)'--_ _Service Law:_ y _Retrospective promotion-Claim for arrears of pay and_ c _allowances from date of promotion-Allowed by Central Administrative Tribunal as also by High Court-HELD: In the light of the consistent view taken by this Court, arrears of salary cannot be granted in view of the principle of no work no pay in case of restrospective promotion-Consequently, the orders of the High Court_ DI _and the Tribunal are set aside-Principle of no work, no pay._ DI _State of Haryana and Ors._ v. _D.P. Gupta and Ors.,_ [1996] 7 SCC 533; _A.K Soumini_ v. _State Bank ofTravancore,_ JT (2003) 8 SC 35 and _State of Andhra Pradesh_ v. _K. V.L. Narasimha Rao and Ors.,_ JT (1999) 3 SC 205, relied on. E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5128 of 2001. -\,,. From the Judgment and final Order dated 17.05.2000 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in C.W. No. 2641 of2000. B.B. Singh, Sunita Sharma, D.S. Mahra and Shreekant N. Terdal for the Appellant. F Anil Kumar Jha and Alka Jha for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered G ## ORDER ~ Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal by Special leave is directed against the judgment and 661 H \ \ [2007] 11 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 662 A 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 11th Januruy, 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribtmal, Principal Bench. None appears for the appellant. The Tribunal has taken the view that since the respondent herein has B been granted retrospective promotion from 27.8.1984 he must be paid arrears of pay and allowances for the higher post for the period 27th August, 1984 till 5th February, 1992. _---(_ A. ..,., Aggrieved against the order of the Tribunal dated 1 ith January, 2000 the Appellant herein filed a writ petition before the High Court and c the High Court dismissed the writ petition affirming the order of the Tribunal. Hence the present appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It was argued by learned counsel for the respondent that when a retrospective promotion D[is ][given ][to ][an incumbent normally ][he ][is ][entitled ][to ][all ][benefits flowing ] therefrom. However, this Court in the case of _State of Haryana_ & _Ors._ V. _D.P. Gupta_ & _Ors.,_ [1996] 7 sec 533 and followed in the case of _A.K Soumini_ v. _State Bank ofTravancore_ 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 E 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 the case of _State of Andhra Pradesh_ v. _K V.L. Narasimha Rao_ & _Ors.,_ (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 F taken by the High Court of grant of salary was set aside by this Court. Therefore, we arc 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 G 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, Principle Bench. y \ .._'>-- _)_ The appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. H[RP. ] Appeal allowed.