[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Avtar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 3 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4340
1 WP-1884-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 3 rd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 1884 of 2016
RAM AVTAR SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bhanu Prakash Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri G.K. Agarwal - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this
petition and issue the necessary direction to pay the undisputed
retirement dues of the petitioner.
(ii) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the arrear
of promoted post of Executive Engineer w.e.f. 17.04.1998 and the
interest at market rate may also be awarded to the petitioner for the
delayed payment ill the actual payment.
(iii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper may also be given to the petitioner along-with costs."
Learned counsel for the petitioner withdraws Relief No. 1 and confines
the petition to Relief No. 2 only.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner
was given the proforma promotion on the post of Executive Engineer w.e.f.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4340
2 WP-1884-2016
17.04.1998 vide order dated 22.10.2012. As per order of Division Bench this
Court in the matter of R.B. Guhe Vs. The State of M.P. reported in 2008 (5)
MPHT 291 (DB), it was contended that the principles of "No Work No Pay"
shall not apply to a case where the lapses are on the part of the Government
in not promoting a particular person.
3 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State supported the
impugned order and submitted that the respondents have rightly denied back
wages on the principle of "No Work No Pay," as the petitioner has not
worked on the promotional post. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to
the salary of the promotional post with retrospective effect.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The petitioner was granted proforma promotion to the post of
Executive Engineer w.e.f. 17.04.1998, vide order dated 22.10.2012. As per
order of Division Bench this Court in the matter of R.B. Guhe (supra), it was
contended that the principles of "No Work No Pay" shall not apply to a case
where the lapses are on the part of the Government in not promoting a
particular person.
6. The law relating to consideration of uncommunicated ACRs for
promotion or upgradation is no longer res integra. In the case of Gurdial
Singh Fijji Vs. State of Punjab & Ors (1979) 2 SCC 368, the court held that
the non-inclusion of a government servant in the select list on account of
adverse entry which was not communicated and the opportunity was not
afforded to submit representation, cannot be made basis for denial of the
promotion. In the case of Kaluram Patidar Vs. State of MP & Ors WP
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4340
3 WP-1884-2016
No.11064/2010 decided on 25.8.2011 , this court relying on the judgment
passed by the Apex Court in the case of Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar Vs. Union
of India (2009) 6 SCC 146 came to the conclusion that the ACRs which have
been resulted in denial of the selection grade cannot be considered to be a
ground for denying the claim to an employee. In the case of Dev Dutt Vs.
Union of India & Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 725, it has been held that non-
communication of entries in the ACRS of a public servant has civil
consequences because it may affect his chance for promotion or get other
benefits. Such non-communication of adverse ACRS would be arbitrary
and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The same has been
followed by a coordinate Bench in the case of Rajendra Kumar Verma vs.
State of M.P. 2017(1) MPLJ 391 . The division bench of this court in the
c a s e Higher Education Department Vs. Dr.(Smt) Kavita Bundela WA
No.421/2017 decided on 23.10.2017 has taken a similar view.
7. So far the denial of the monetary benefits on the principle of No
Work No Pay is also not sustainable. From the facts, it is clear that the
petitioner's right to promotion was denied erroneously.
8. The respondents have not shown any fault of the employee for non
consideration of his case for promotion alongwith his juniors. Thus, the non-
consideration for promotion of the petitioner at the relevant time is solely
attributable to the department and there is no fault on the part of the
employee therefore, the employee cannot be denied the consequential
benefits after promotion. In the case of Union of India Vs. K.V.Jankiraman,
AIR 1991 SC 2010, the Apex Court held that where the employee was not at
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4340
4 WP-1884-2016
fault and the department deprived him to perform the promotional post, the
principle of "No work no pay" would not be applicable. The said principle
has been followed by the Apex Court in the subsequent judgment in the case
of State of Kerala Vs. E.K.Bhaskaran Pillai (2007) 6 SCC 524, followed by
the Division Bench of this court in the case of C.B.Tiwari Vs. State of M.P.
& others, 2015(2) MPHT 132. A similar view has been taken by Division
Bench at the Principal Seat at Jabalpur in WA No.1287/2017 (State of MP
and Ors Vs. Jham Singh Pandre) decided on 02.01.2018.
9. The Division Bench of this Court in the matter of R.B. Guhe vs. the
State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) has held as under:
"12. The principles of 'No Work No Pay' shall not apply to a case
where the lapses are on the part of the Government in not
promoting a particular person. A proper and correct seniority list is
to be maintained by the Government and if a particular person is
not assigned correct position in the seniority list then again the
lapses would be on the part of the State Government. The learned
Single Judge was unjustified in holding that a juxtapose reading of
Fundamental Rule 31-A and Paragraph 5 of the Government order
dated 25-4-1974 can be treated to be a statutory rule.
14. It will also be necessary to observe that there would be a vast
distinction between an 'erroneous' promotion as referred to in
Fundamental Rule 31-A and case of 'no-promotion' as referred to
in Paragraph 5 of the Government order dated 25-4-1974. If the
benefits are flowing from erroneous promotion then the
Government certainly would be entitled to recover the money
which has been wrongly paid toits employees but Government, in
case of non-promotion which is found to be bad in the eyes of law
cannot refuse to pay the rightful dues to its own employees. If
Paragraph 5 of Government order dated 25-4- 1974 is allowed to
be read in favour of the Government then it will lead to an
impossible situation because the Government in such case would
become arbitrator in its own case and would arbitrarily deny the
benefits to the persons who are rightfully entitled to the claim.
Hypothetically, we take a case, 'a person who because of wrong
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4340
5 WP-1884-2016
placement in the seniority list is denied his promotion, comes to
the Court and the Court finds that he was wrongly denied the
promotion, can in such a case Court refuse to extend the benefits'.
The answer certainly would be 'No'."
10. After hearing counsel for the parties and in view of the aforesaid
legal position, the petitioner is entitled to get all the consequential benefits
from the actual date of promotion of the petitioner i.e. 17.04.1998.
11. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The respondents are
directed to calculate the arrears of salary and the same be paid to the
petitioner within a period of four months from the date of submitting copy of
the order, making it clear that if arrears of salary are not paid within the
prescribed period, then it shall carry interest @ 6% till the actual payment is
made to the petitioner.
12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition
is disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Monika
