IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2011 / 7TH SRAVANA 1933 WA.No. 1163 of 2007(B) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15614/2004 Dated 22/11/2006 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER. ----------------------------------------- K.S.RETNAMMA, RETIRED ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF SCHEDULE CASTE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NANDAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SCHEDULED CASTE/SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT DEPT., SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SMT.SOWMIAVADHY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR SC/ST THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/07/2011, THE COURT ON 29/07/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============================== W.A. NO. 1163 OF 2007 =================== Dated this the 29th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Antony Dominic, J. The unsuccessful petitioner in WP(C) No.15614/2004 is the appellant. The writ petition was filed praying to quash Ext.P10 order passed by the Government of Kerala and to direct the respondents to grant salary to the petitioner from the date of promotion as Deputy Director and Joint Director and to grant her regular promotion to the post of Additional Director w.e.f. 01/04/2003. 2. The appellant was working as District Development Officer in the Scheduled Caste Development Department. On account of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, despite the occurrence of vacancies in the post of Deputy Director and Joint Director, her claim for promotion to the higher posts were not considered. 3. She challenged the disciplinary proceedings before this Court in OP No.749/03. Ext.P1 is the judgment rendered in that case. The judgment shows that there were three charges pending WA No.1163/07 : 2 : against her and that this Court found charge numbers 1 and 2 unsustainable. However, charge No.3 was held sustainable and the matter was left to the disciplinary authority with a direction to take appropriate decision on the question of punishment. On the basis of the directions in the judgment, Ext.P2 order was issued imposing a punishment of warning/censure. That punishment has become final. 4. Subsequently appellant claimed retrospective promotion with effect from the date when her junior was promoted. This claim was considered and she was granted promotions earlier than her junior and with retrospective effect from the date of occurrence of vacancies. However the promotion was ordered to be treated notional and without monetary benefits. It is in these circumstances the writ petition was filed. 5. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge held that since the appellant was imposed punishment, this was not a case where promotion was denied to the appellant for no fault of hers. On that ground, the learned Single Judge rejected the claim of the appellant for monetary benefits. It is impugning this judgment, this writ appeal is filed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated his WA No.1163/07 : 3 : contention that the appellant was entitled to the monetary benefits. According to the learned counsel, on conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, punishment of censure/warning alone was imposed and that since such a punishment was not a bar for promotion, the appellant's case should be treated as one where promotion was denied to her for no fault of hers. 7. We have considered the submissions made. 8. From the facts narrated above, it is evident that at the time when promotions were effected, due to the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant was not considered. On conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, by Ext.P2 order, she was found guilty of one misconduct and a punishment of warning/censure was imposed. The punishment imposed has become final. It was thereafter that promotion with retrospective effect was granted to the appellant. Therefore, as on the date when promotions were initially effected, disciplinary action was pending against her and appellant's case was excluded from consideration in view of the rules prevailing in the service. The disciplinary action culminated in an order imposing punishment. Therefore, for that reason itself, it cannot be said that it was no fault of the appellant that promotion was denied or that it was for WA No.1163/07 : 4 : the fault of the respondents that promotion was denied. Therefore, the decisions that were relied on by the appellant in Rajappan Nair v. State of Kerala and others (1984 KLT 141), Sivarajan v. State of Kerala (1993(2) KLT 287) and Govt. of A.P. v. M.Adbuta Rao {(2005) 12 SCC 258} cannot be of any assistance to the appellant. 9. Apart from that, admittedly the appellant did not work in the higher post during the period in question. If that be so, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge, the facts of the case attract the principle “no work no pay”. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the writ appeal in our view is liable to be dismissed and we do so. J.CHELAMESWAR CHIEF JUSTICE. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE. Rp