Rajendra Kumar Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2185 MP

                                      1

             HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
                          BENCH AT GWALIOR
                             WP-1954-2014
          (Rajendra Kumar Jain Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)


Gwalior, Dated : 08/06/2021

      Heard Through Video Conferencing.

      Shri Prashant Singh Kaurav, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri R.P. Singh, learned Government Advocate for the

respondents No.1 to 2/State.

Shri Nitin Goyal, learned counsel for the respondents No.3 & 4.

Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties.

In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

petitioner has assailed the legality, validity and propriety of the order

dated 15/07/2013 (Annexure P/1), whereby the promotion was granted

to the petitioner on the post of Registrar but monetary benefits have not

been extended to him on the principle of "No Work No Pay."

The brief facts leading to filing of this case are that petitioner was

initially appointed on 01/09/1973 and continued to work till the age of

superannuation i.e 31/03/2010. The petitioner was promoted on the post

of UDC on 10/11/1978 and thereafter, on the post of Accountant w.e.f.

07/12/1989. The petitioner discharged his duties with utmost devotion

and sincerity to the satisfaction of his superior.

The grievance of the petitioner is that Departmental Promotion

Committee (DPC) was conducted and the petitioner was found eligible

for promotion to the post of Registrar w.e.f. 01/12/2005 in the pay scale

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR WP-1954-2014 (Rajendra Kumar Jain Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)

Rs.8000-13,500/-. However, for the reasons best known to the

respondents, the petitioner was not promoted even though he was

discharging the duties of Registrar. It is further submitted that without

there being any fault on part of the petitioner, the monetary benefits

have been denied to him by wrong application of the principle of "No

work No Pay". Lapse of non- promoting the petitioner in time is on part

of State Government. It is an admitted position that as per letter dated

15/07/2013 (Annexure P/1), DPC was held on 06/04/2013 in which the

case of the petitioner was considered and DPC had recommended the

case of the petitioner for promotion w.e.f. 01/12/2005. The petitioner

superannuated on 31/03/2010 vide impugned order dated 15/07/2013

and the benefit of promotion has been granted to the petitioner w.e.f.

01/12/2005 but the monetary benefits/difference of salary for the post of

Registrar w.e.f. 01/12/2005 to 31/03/2010 has been denied to the

petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no

fault on part of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner could not be made

to suffer. In support of his contention, the petitioner relied upon the

judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Chandra

Shekhar Verma Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2010 (3) MPLJ 463.

On the other hand, reply has been filed by the respondents/State

in which it is stated that principle of "No Work No Pay" has rightly been

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR WP-1954-2014 (Rajendra Kumar Jain Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)

applied and in view of the fact that the petitioner did not work on the

promoted post and therefore, he cannot be said to be entitled for

monetary benefits of the promoted post.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Admittedly, the petitioner was not considered for promotion in

time by the DPC. According to the certificate (Annexure P/2), the

petitioner has been discharging the duties of in-charge Registrar w.e.f.

01/12/2005 till the age of his superannuation. This fact can be

confirmed from the minutes of DPC dated 06/09/2013 (Annexure P/4).

In these circumstances, it is clear that there is no fault on part of the

petitioner. He was not promoted at the appropriate time, therefore,

denial of the monetary benefits by placing reliance on the principle of

"No Work No Pay" is wholly unjustified.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.V.

Jankiraman [AIR 1991 SC 2010] has held that "if an employee is

willing to work on a particular post, is deprived for the same due to non

promotion, then the employee is entitled for consequential including

monetary benefits and the principle of "No Work No Pay" is not

applicable in such cases." Accordingly, the impugned order dated

15/07/2013 (Annexure P/1) to the extent of treating the period from

01/12/2005 to 31/03/2010 as not entitled for salary on the principle of

"No Work No Pay" is hereby set-aside. The order promoting the

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR WP-1954-2014 (Rajendra Kumar Jain Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)

petitioner on the post of Registrar w.e.f. 01/12/2005 is hereby

maintained. Respondents are directed to extend the monetary benefits to

the petitioner flowing from the aforesaid promotion w.e.f. 01/12/2005 to

31/03/2010.The monetary benefits as well as consequential benefits (if

any) may be calculated and released in favour of the petitioner within a

period of three months alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

Accordingly, petition stands allowed to the extent indicated

hereinabove.

Certified/e-copy as per rules/directions.

(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge

rahul

RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR 2021.06.10 16:36:38 +05'00'