D'vtslon Benc" A, c^- ^L- IN THE HIGH COUfeT OF CHHATTISGARH AT ILASPUR. 3^o WMTAPPEAL N0. OF201Q ./>\' ^ ^^f"" 'y'y ^ RESPONDENTS /- 1. fArising out of W.P (Sl No.6058/2009 APPEX^af /^R.C. Dubey S/o Late R.S. Dueby, aged about 61 years, Lower Division Clerk (Assistant ^/^^/ Grade III) in Office of Sub Divisional Officer Agriculture Bilaspur C.G. (Petitioner) VERSUS State of M.P. Through the Chief Secretary, Agriculture Department, Bhopal (Now C.G. DKS Bhawan Raipur) 2. Project Officer, Agriculture Project Bilasigrar 3. Deputy Director (Joint Director) Agl-itulture Bilaspur ^4. Shri R.K. Gupta, Upper Division Cl^t-K, in office of Sub ^ficer Sarangarh, District Rai^^ ^ (Re^pondents in wrft petitiOti) THE MENO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2111 OF THB ^HHATTI^GARH HIGH COURT IAPPBAL TO DIVISION BENCH ] ACT.2006 / "^^es3s!^ ^ ^.^£11^.1 M.'s^^ •^^^^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTTAPPEAL No. 320 of2010 .'':•' " '•". ." ':' .''".'•••''.^.'- ••'•.•••'•.':•••'• • .• .'•• • .. . :• .• ' '. •: • •' •• ^ "••': ' •'"•••'•"• ''.' APPELLANT : R.C.Dubey. RESPONDENTS VERSBS StatepfM.P.&Other&. :'^m Judgment for consideration. Sd/- -'-j-cra^g^7' ^-8-20111; 'L. :r{.^' .r~^ ••<•••''^ Ilon'ble Shri JusticeRadhe Shyam Sharma , O cv^^ie^_^ Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge •'ir. T^ Postfbrpronouncementoffhe\iudgmerito^^ S^dayQfA:ugust,20ll Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^y^K^ fe'tl^: Mi-- " "\':':.-': • '^ '•^:^'..'^^=;:.l-v '£ mOH CGURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR .' ' • ..'.' .• ". :- '. '• " '•.' •. .:..' • .•'• •'•. • •••'• WRITAPPEALNo. 320 of2010 APPELLANT KESPONDENTS T R.CJDubey. VERSUS State ofM.P.& Others; ^'' :V ,c;'"-:-":''';';: APPEAL UNDERSECTIQN 2(1') OF THE CHHAJTIS(jARH HIGH <X)URT'(^PEALTODIVISK^ Coram: Hdin'ble ShrilSatiisfi K; Agniliotri, & Hori9ble |Shri RadUe Shyam SUarma, JJ. Present: Shri Rakesh Pandey., Advocate fbr the appellant. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia^Deputy Gbvemment Advacate for the ^^::',''-^.:^'':.: 'State/resppiid^ \. ,;^^.,^ 1- .•,^-^;^ l.^.",' -'i"1 ^',("^'.•;.'••"'';;-': .y^ -^."^ .„''./ .•^-:^:.1.1::?1^1^':/^'1::1.';1; (Deliveredon..,^..dayofAugusf,2Qll) ^l. The mstant intra-court appea from the order dated 10.08.2010 (Anri^xureA/l) passe^ in W;P.(S) No, 3Q33 of 2005 (7?.G£)^^y v. Prmcipal Secretary,: Deparfment of Agriculture, State of Madhyd Pradesh, Bhopal <fe Others) passed by the leamed Single Judge; 2. The appellant^etitioner preferred an applicatioh before the Madhya Pradesli Sfate Administrat^ Raipur, being O.A, N0. 779/t999, which was transferred to this Court and re-numbered as Wf.(S) No. 3033/2005. The ^ appellant challenged te y jumor ?.e; resp<^ post of Upper Divtsioii Clerk, (Assistant Orade II), on several grounds^ The.leamed 'y^^ r ^A Single Judge, after considering all the aspects of the matter, held that adverse remark in the Annual Confidential Reporf (for short 'ACR') considered in the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short 'the DPC') held on 25.04.1997, were un-communicated to the appellant. Thus, treating the appellant unfit for promotion was held to be illegal and the State/respondent No. 1 to 3 were directed to consider the case of the appellant for promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk in accordance with the rules and guidelines and in light of the observations made in the judgment as on the earlier date. However, it was made clear that if the appellant was found fit for promotion from the earlier date, the appellant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits of notional pay fixation, seniority, except the arrears of pay. The appellant has challenged a part qfthe judgment to the extent where the arrears ofpay was denied. 3. Shri Pandey, leamed counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that since the direction was to consider the case of the petitioner from the back date when the respondent No. 4 was considered for promotion on the post ofUpper Division Clerk, the appellant was entitled to difference of pay also as the appellant was denied promotion on account of consideration ofthe uncommunicated ACRs. 4. On the other hand., Shri Bhatia, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 to 3 would submit that the appellant was not entitled to difference of ^ys^ il€"^':^ ^ ^_ ^•...,^; 's^^y m ;^ ^. 6. \1. salary as h^ iieyer worieed on flic post of TJpper DiyisicMi Clerk befom the case of the, appellant was direeted 1o be considered ft)r promoti<m to the jpost ofUpper Division <31erk, Thus, GH the prmciple of 'np work, no pay9 the appellanf was rightlynotheldasehtitledtobenefits ofarrears ofdifference of salary between the post 6f Upper Divislon Clerk and the Lower Divisibri Clerfc. :-^.:. ...^f-,-,,,.-.,.-. ^;...^.. '.•,.:',.•.. . . . .^ ..-.•,.:". '•.^':; .;•;,.;, ^ In this appeal, the question whic^^ falls fbr consideration is that whetherithe appdlant is entM^ to difference of salary, if the appellant was found :fit fbr promotion m the DPC meeting held ason 25.04.1997. The appellant was granted notional payandfixatKmofsemorityasa^ In Pf7/^ru jRa/^A^^^^/z <& QtKers v. Union^^^^o^ O^ew , the Supreme Coiu-t upheld fhe priiiciple of 'n(y wbrk, no pay9 and iheld that an employee will not be entitled to any pay and allov^ances ^during the period he did not perfbrm fhe duty of higUer post althQugh after; d corisideratiori he was giveii proper place iii the gradafion list having deemed to be promoted tQ the higher ^ junior was promoted, it was held fhat the emptoyee was m:)t entitledtoclaimanyfmaiicialberiefitrc^ .! ' Theaforesaidprmcipleof'noworl^nopay9^^^w^ the Supreme Court in Virendra Kunzar,General Manager, ;;:lt,. ^"l;^; ,;•-•:",,::.;:-':, y'^K ^..'1. •)"' 'l' ,fl;.;';-.?':'"'>.-; L(;1989y2S€C541 ^ :% .,:^^ 4 Northern Rwl^ays, N^ &0th^rs2. s. In State ofiKerala&^Q^ regard fo grant ofmonetary beriefits with retrospective effect, the Suprem^ Courf held that ^o^^^^^f^ as grant of ;monetary benefit with retrospec is concemed, ttiat depends upon case to ease. It was farther observed as wider: ^.;. .Sometimes in the matter when the person is superseded and he lias^, . cliallenged ^ HBunal aiid he succeeds in 1h.at and direcfioni^ case fi^om the date pers^ns juntor to htm yvere a^omtcd^^m case the court may grant sometimes full benefits with TGtwspectiv^ effect arid sometimes it may ;';;:hot.":-::.".';'; }-"';,:;-'•,. '—^..- • '•1'"^ ••:••::-.^:,.^-:^^ < - ;l,T, ;/•" :^'.J-;;"^. :"'-•:; ^••SM. 9. The Supreme Cburt^ in fo^^ <^ ..'asimder^'':--:.1'^/^.f'\'\';'^^^\^^;;:'^ . ' '';';^:;-:^'^.'';::';.' y:;;^.\'.(-:-:'^ 2(I990)^SCC472 3;:(2007)6SCC524: 'IC2007>11SCC632 ^5l.,..,However5 tfais^ C m. Stat^ ^ Hciryana v^^^^ Gupta and followed in !A.K: Soumini v. State Bank of Trayancpre has tafen th©view that;even m easie of a notionat promption^^^ from retrbspective dajte, it cannot entitle the employee to arrears ofisalary as the^^^m^ woxfced m ^ the promotional post. TUese decisipns relied on the princrple of 6'riQ work no pay". The leamed Division Bencli inl^the inipugned juclgm has placed reliance ^ QII State of A.P. v. K^L. Nwasjmha^Rffo. In our view, tiie High ^ Gourt did not examine that case in detail. Inj fact, in the;safdjudgment the view taken fcy the High Court of grant of salary was set aside by'this Court, Therefbre^^^^^w of the pview that in ;the light of th^ -.^;:;^;'^:;'£lT,.'.;; ,^'1:":.: ,(-;'.^...;-;:':':'". ' t.1.." I-';. ^/•" ;^\^:r'.^.:'<": •-5 ccmsistentview tafceri by this Gourt in^ abovementio^ cases/ arrears of salary eaimot be grmted to the resp^^ view of the prmcip work no pay" incaseofrefrospectivepromotion.5^^^^^ IQ. ^ln St(^ ofMaryano^ ^ Supreme Court Keld as under: . ':;..iL.."i;^. ;:: -•f' :^.',c::^-'?'-"'^-'.l ;'-^ ;.^:" /; ''2. Heard the leamed counsel fbr ^^^^^^^ I,., ^ ^^^^^ a^ our nbtice a decision ofthls Court in^AStote ^^ v^(^jP/ G'^towhereunder in respecfo^a^ tdentical fflafter arising out 6f ,similar proceedings ofeyen date this CQurt while settihg aside fhe decisio of the Higlr ; ;^ Courtallowedtheappeal^ fbe State and held that in the circumstances; noticed in (hat case which are identical as wellmtliecasesbeforeu thequestionof pa|yme^ ^retrQSpecttv&effectftomthenotio^ ; does ^ rcsppndents^ad n^yer worked dur period in the promotional post^ ^ ^ ^ ' ^ principte msucH cases 1^ "no work, ho pa^9^ The saidprincipleapplies withequal ' force to the cases before us tpp, Applying fhe t'atip ofthe said ^ealsaallowedandtUeDrdersoffheHig^^ Gourt are set aside and ;the wrif petitions ' * ; ^^^^^^^^^^^ b sUall Maa^^ dismissed.Nocosts.9' ^ ^ II, In the case on hand, DP^ meetirig washeldon 25,04.^997 befbre creation <>flh^ S Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000. The petitioner had nof worked ontfaepfpmotedpostQfL^ Division Clerk.Afler car/ing of the State pf C liahilMes have been allocated. Thus, at^^^^^^ petitioner is iiot e^ in fhe facts of liie case -0 :'i: •^^•^' •^i^;', \.;" ,/.^\^.^.,,-,-^.^,..^ ''•^%:^' .^"•^'.:f":^-<:';"''7::': '(2007) 15 SCC 777 'm^M^. Amit ^ J6;;;.:l.'.'".1.. .! .';',;.,''-;;'..;'^;.',..^-.': and also on the prmciple of 'no work, rio pay' witii retrQspective effetA^ M^ appellant had, actually not --worke^on^epromQtedpostQfI^ 12. In view oftlw a^ ^dated 10.08.2010 J(A^ passed by the lesimed '.8ingle,Ju<lge.;\l:.'^..-y7^..1^.''/'/^;^.:5'\l.//^ ! 'l'"';'-'..vl:'~:;'.ll:)^'::: 1^;^'.<1";1.^ 13,ConsequentI^^e.app^atis Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge •"Li!t.".;-\.r ;)"1";^',,(":,':K,.^:':''':;..\: ;,.^'^ ^:^: ..•^'l^; yY'v-^^': ..;•.,^, • -^, ^.,\\^ r;i'-:lr'.c;''^.,;:.'.'"<'': ^SK