Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1115 (MP)

Hanumant Singh Bhadauria v. State of M. P.

2011-09-21

SUJOY PAUL

body2011
JUDGMENT : Sujoy Paul, J.:- The short question for determination before this Court is whether the action of the State in treating the period from 04.11.1995 to 04.11.1999 as 'No Work No Pay' is justified or not. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under: - 2. The petitioner was promoted by order dated 04.11.1999 pursuant to recommendations of duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) on the post of Principal Higher Secondary School in the pay scale of Rs. 2375-4125. However while promoting the petitioner from the date of his entitlement i.e, 04.11.1995, the intervening period are treated as 'No Work No- Pay'. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during this period even otherwise petitioner has worked as in-charge Principal and performed the duty of Principal. Accordingly, the said principle is not applicable in the present case. Shri Singh further submits that petitioner was allowed to work as incharge Principal vide order dated 31.07.1994 and on account of lapse on the part of respondent the petitioner has been belatedly accorded the promotion vide order dated 04.01.1999. Thus the principle of 'No Work No Pay' cannot be pressed into services. He placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court reported in AIR 1991 SC 2010 (Union of India vs. K. V Jankiraman). 3. Per Contra, Shri Newaskar submits that since petitioner has not worked for the aforesaid period, principle of 'No Work No Pay' is rightly applied. He supported the order dated 04.11.1999 to the extent-the said period is treated for the purpose of notional promotion and proforma fixation. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The question involved in this matter is no more res Integra. In K. V Jankiraman's Case (supra) the Apex Court held that when a person is willing to be promoted and was deprived from the fruits of promotion for that reasons solely attributable to the employer, the Principle of "no work no pay" has no application. In the present case the respondents have not assigned any valid reasons for not promoting the petitioner on due date. A bald statement is made that since the petitioner has not worked in the intervening period, he is not entitled for arrears of pay. In the present case the respondents have not assigned any valid reasons for not promoting the petitioner on due date. A bald statement is made that since the petitioner has not worked in the intervening period, he is not entitled for arrears of pay. No reasons are assigned by the respondents as to why petitioner was not promoted in due time and why delay caused by the respondents. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner is, in any way, responsible for the belated promotion. 6. A Division Bench of this Court in the case reported in 2009 (4) M.PJ.R. 281 (Anand Mohan Saxena vs. State of MP and another has considered various Supreme Court's judgments on the subject. Division Bench held that the order promoting the appellant does not assign any reason why the appellant was not promoted in the year 1999 when his juniors were promoted. In the light of aforesaid, the Division Bench directed for payment of arrears on the promotional post. 7. In view of this legal position, settled by Division Bench in Anand Mohan Saxena's case (supra), the petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to pay arrears of pay to the petitioner on promotion from 4.11.1995 to 4.11.1999 within three months from the date of communication of this order. No costs.