Subhash Gaur vs Uco Bank And Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 4148 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No.5917/2002

%                                                           22nd May, 2015

SUBHASH GAUR                                             ..... Petitioner
                          Through:       Counsel for the petitioner (appearance
                                         not given).

                          Versus

UCO BANK AND ORS.                                             ..... Respondents
                          Through:

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.           By this writ petition, petitioner who was an employee of the

respondent no.1-bank has sought reliefs of promotions from Scale-I to Scale-

IV posts. Petitioner in the writ petition claims that since the departmental

proceedings against him stand quashed in terms of the judgment of the civil

court dated 19.9.2000, Annexure P-1 to the writ petition, petitioner is

entitled to consequential benefits of promotions.


2.           During the course of arguments, and in terms of the counter

affidavit filed by the respondent no.1-bank, it became clear that the
WP(C) 5917/2002                                                            Page 1 of 4
 promotions claimed are not automatic promotions but are promotions by

selection. Petitioner was selected in terms of the result on 9.8.1988 which

was kept in a sealed cover on account of disciplinary proceedings pending,

and which was the result with respect to promotion of the petitioner from

Scale-I to Scale-II. Respondent no.1-bank has given benefit to the petitioner

of promotion from Scale-I to Scale-II but only with notional effect from

1.1.1988 and without granting the monetary benefits from 1.1.1988 to

12.6.2001. Petitioner claims that he is entitled to the difference of the

monetary emoluments payable of Scale-I post and Scale-II post from

1.1.1988 till 12.6.2001. For the sake of completion of narration, it may be

stated that the petitioner had appeared for promotion from Scale-II to Scale-

III in the process of July, 2001 but the petitioner did not qualify. Thereafter,

when promotion process was initiated from Scale-II to Scale-III for which

petitioner had applied, the petitioner was successful and was thus promoted

to Scale-III on 14.12.2002. Really therefore, the claim of the petitioner, and

as argued before this Court, is now restricted only to claiming the difference

in the monetary emoluments of Scale-I to Scale-II from 1.1.1988 till

14.12.2002.




WP(C) 5917/2002                                                             Page 2 of 4
 3.           In law, no doubt there is a principle of 'no work, no pay',

however this principle is not inflexible in its application as held by the

Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of State of Kerala & Ors. Vs.

E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai (2007) 6 SCC 524.            In fact, judgments of the

Supreme Court go the extent of holding that if it is the employer who is

responsible for not allowing the employee to join without any fault of the

employee, then an employee is entitled to 100% of pay.


4.           In view of the aforesaid legal position, counsel for the petitioner

agrees that petitioner will be satisfied if the petitioner gets 50% of the

difference of the monetary emoluments of Scale-I to Scale-II from 1.1.1988

to 14.12.2002 i.e the petitioner has received monetary emoluments of Scale-I

and is only entitled to certain amounts being the difference with the higher

amount payable for the Scale-II post from 1.1.1988 till 14.12.2002.


5.           In my opinion, the stand taken up on behalf of the petitioner is a

very fair stand, and therefore this writ petition is allowed and disposed of by

directing that petitioner be granted 50% of the difference of the monetary

emoluments payable between Scale-I and Scale-II posts for the period from

1.1.1988 till 14.12.2002. The amount due to the petitioner in terms of the

present judgment be paid within a period of two months of the copy of the

WP(C) 5917/2002                                                             Page 3 of 4
 present judgment being given to the respondent no.1.    If the amounts due

are not paid within two months, thereafter petitioner will be entitled to

interest @ 9% per annum simple after the period of two months till the date

of payment of dues of the petitioner.


6.           Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly, leaving the

parties to bear their own costs.




MAY 22, 2015                                  VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne