Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Kumar Pathak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27460
1 WP-27046-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 30th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 27046 of 2024
SURESH KUMAR PATHAK
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nirmal Sharma - learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sohit Mishra- learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
ORDER
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14/06/2024
(Annexure-P/1), whereby he has been granted proforma promotion on the
post of Ranger w.e.f. 22/01//2015 i.e. the date from which his junior person
was granted promotion, however, the actual monetary benefit has been
denied to him on the principle of "No Work No Pay".
2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner
was at the relevant time working as Dy. Ranger and was due for promotion
on the post of Ranger. However, the promotion was not given to him
although the persons junior to him were granted promotion. Being aggrieved,
the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. No.7001/2015
challenging his non-promotion. The petition came to be disposed off by this
Court vide order dated 12/06/2023 (Annexure-P/5) thereby directing the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27460
2 WP-27046-2024
respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for promotion on the post of
Ranger in accordance with law keeping in view the seniority as well as the
order of promotion granted to the junior persons.
3. In compliance of the Court order, the petitioner's candidature for
promotion on the post of Ranger was considered by the respondents. Vide
order dated 14/06/2024, (Annexure P/1) the petitioner has been granted
promotion on the post of Ranger w.e.f. 22/01/2015 from which date his
junior was granted promotion. However, the monetary benefit on account of
his promotion has been denied to him on the principle of "No Work No Pay".
Challenging this action of the respondents, the present writ petition has been
filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
has been found entitled for promotion from the date his junior persons were
promoted. He also submitted that the petitioner has been diligently
contesting the matter since 2015 and ultimately he is found entitled for
promotion from the date his junior was promoted on the post of Ranger. He
thus submitted that, since the petitioner was not at fault, the denial of
monetary benefits of promoted post for the intervening period, is illegal. He
further submitted that the principles of "No Work No Pay" are not attracted
when the petitioner was denied promotion illegally. In support of his
submission, he placed reliance upon the coordinate Bench order in the case
of Manoharlal Vs. State of M.P. & others in W.P. No.1550/2009.
5. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/State supports the impugned action of the respondents and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27460
3 WP-27046-2024
submitted that the petitioner since has not worked on the promoted post, he
cannot claim salary for the said post. He also submitted that the claim raised
by the petitioner in the present petition is considered by the respondent
authorities during pendency of this case. Referring to the memo dated
05/03/2025 (Annexure-R/1), he submitted that on re-consideration also, the
petitioner is not found entitled for monetary benefit for the intervening
period. He also placed reliance upon the circular dated 20/03/2009
(Annexure-R/2) issued by the General Administration Department of
Government of Madhya Pradesh wherein also it has been directed that the
monetary benefit for promoted post is payable from the date of actual
promotion.
6. Considered the arguments and perused the records.
7. It is no more in dispute that the petitioner was entitled to promotion
on the post of Ranger from 22/01/2015 when his junior person was
promoted. In other words, the petitioner was wrongly denied promotion. The
principles of No Work No Pay is not attracted when the employee is
available for work but is denied opportunity to work on the post. In other
words, the reason for non working on promoted post is not attributable to the
concerned employee, the principles of "No Work No Pay" is not attracted.
The principles of "No Work No Pay" are applicable only when the employee
himself is responsible for his non-working on the promoted post. In the facts
of the present case, it is seen that he was wrongfully denied for promotion on
the post of Ranger in the year 2015. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
petitioner himself was responsible for not working on the promoted post.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27460
4 WP-27046-2024
8. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Manohar Lal
(supra) has considered the law on the principle of "No Work No Pay". After
referring to various judgments of the Apex Court, this Court has held in para
7 as under:-
"7. In view of above, this court has no hesitation to hold
that in the given facts and circumstances where
withholding/delayed promotion of the petitioner to the post of
Stenographer Grade-I was not for reason attributed to him and
there is otherwise no restriction for grant of arrears of salary to the
petitioner in law and on the strength of the executive instructions
dated 21-29/3/1989 and 22/2/1990, this court finds that the claim
of the petitioner is justified."
9. Thus, having held that the petitioner was not responsible for his not
working on the promoted post, it is to be held that the principles of "No
Work No Pay" was wrongly applied in the present case by the respondents.
The learned Government Advocate placed reliance upon the Apex Court
judgment in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board & another Vs.
Dharamdeo Das in Civil Appeal No.6977/2015 . It was a case where the
employee was granted promotion from 5th of March, 2003 while he was
claiming promotion from July' 1997 i.e. from the date the post fallen vacant.
After considering the legal position, the Apex Court held in para 18 that the
promotion is effective from the date it is granted and not from the date when
the vacancy fell vacant. The facts of this case, however, are different wherein
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27460
5 WP-27046-2024
he was wrongly denied promotion while his junior was granted promotion.
The respondents, themselves have acknowledged the petitioner's eligibility
and suitability for promotion and have been given him promotion with
retrospective effect.
10. Considering the aforesaid, the direction of respondents in denying
monetary benefit of the promoted post to the petitioner on the principles of
"No Work No Pay" is found to be unsustainable in law and is, accordingly,
set-aside. The respondents are directed to confer the monetary benefit of the
promoted post of Ranger w.e.f. 22/01/2015 till the petitioner retired from
service.
11. With the aforesaid, this petition is allowed and disposed off.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
rahul
