Telangana High Court
Ch. Bhadraiah vs The State Of Telangana, Rep. By ... on 2 September, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 728 OF 2017
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed by petitioners, who are all
retired employees, questioning the action of respondents in not
paying them arrears of salary and benefits consequent to their
alleged entitlement of promotion as Agricultural Extension
Officers Grade-I with effect from 17.04.1997. A consequent
direction is sought to respondents to pay them arrears from
17.04.1997 till their respective retirement in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.167, Agriculture & Cooperation (V2) Department,
dated 17.04.1987 and other relevant provisions.
2. Petitioners' case is that, they joined service as
Agriculture Extension Officers and were later deputed to the
Horticulture Department, and retired from service as Grade-I
Extension Officers. It is stated, they are entitled for promotion to
the cadre of A.E.O. Grade-I from 17.04.1997, but that
entitlement has not been implemented. It is further stated that
though petitioners were parties to O.A.No.6118 of 2011 and
orders were passed therein, and though Commissioner also
issued specific directions, the Joint Director, Agriculture,
Khammam violated those directions. According to petitioners,
all of them were deprived of their lawful promotions and
consequential payment of arrears which, according to them,
comes to more than one lakh rupees each. It was alleged that
though they are entitled to arrears of wages and salaries from
17.04.1997 till their respective dates of retirement, they did not
receive any such amounts.
2.1. It is further stated, the 1st petitioner along with
other employees approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal by
filing O.A.No.6118 of 2011 and the said O.A. was allowed,
directing respondents to give effect to promotion to the cadre of
A.E.O. as per G.O.Ms.No.167, Agriculture & Cooperation (V2)
Department, dated 17.04.1987 and also directing payment of
salary/wages from 17.04.1997. The Commissioner of
Horticulture also directed the Joint Director, Agriculture,
Khammam to pay difference of salaries from 17.04.1997 till the
date of retirement of petitioners, including retirement of
petitioner No.1 on 31.10.2010. The affidavit specifically referred
to Commissioner's Letter dated 26.07.1997 and NIC message
dated 09.08.2004, in which the Joint Director was clearly
directed to comply with the promotion and payment of arrears.
It was stated that despite these orders, the Joint Director,
Agriculture did not comply with and only granted notional
benefits after retirement, without payment of arrears.
2.2. According to petitioners, all of them are entitled to
arrears of more than Rs.1,00,000/- each. Instead of releasing
arrears, respondents only paid one notional increment after
retirement. They therefore, submitted representation to Joint
Director on 26.09.2016 explaining their entitlement to receive
arrears. However, Joint Director, Agriculture, Khammam did not
consider their request. Though they approached the higher
authorities, their request was not considered.
2.3. Petitioners alleged that counter affidavit filed by the
State in O.A.No.6118 of 2011 clearly admitted that they were
entitled for promotion from Grade-II Agriculture Extension
Officer to A.E.O. Grade-I from 17.04.1997; only because of
administrative delays, their promotions were not implemented
in time.
3. The case of the 4th respondent - District
Agricultural Officer is that petitioner No.1 along with others had
earlier approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 6118 of 2011
seeking a direction to consider their promotion; further prayed
for payment of salary/wages approximately
Rs. 1,00,000/- each from 17.04.1997. For better appreciation of
the matter, the 4th respondent gave details of petitioners in a
tabular form in the affidavit.
3.1. It is stated further that the Tribunal recorded the
submission of learned counsel for applicants that respondents
had already promoted them as Agricultural Extension Officers
Grade-I through Proceedings No. AS(2)635/2011, dated
17.07.2014, Proceedings No. A2/3684/2009, dated 18.07.2014,
and Proceedings No. A2/3684/2009, dated 19.07.2014. In view
of the same, the Tribunal observed that no cause of action
survived in the matter and accordingly closed the O.A.
3.2. It is clarified that Petitioners 1, 3, 4, 5 and 9 filed
O.A. No. 6118 of 2011 while Petitioners No. 2, 6, 7 and 8 filed
O.A. No. 4460 of 2014 for a direction to respondents to consider
their promotion to the post of Agricultural Extension Officer
Grade-I. Pursuant to the orders of the Tribunal and also as per
the instructions received from the 2nd respondent, the 4th
respondent considered the cases of applicants for notional
promotion. Accordingly, in respect of Petitioners No. 1, 2, 3, 5,
6, 7 and 8, proceedings were issued notionally as they had
already retired from service. Petitioners No. 4 and 9, who were
still in service as on the date of issuance of promotion orders,
were also considered and promoted as Agricultural Extension
Officers Grade-I. After submission of the compliance report, the
Tribunal closed the O.A. by order dated 06.08.2014. The said
order once again recorded that learned counsel for applicants
had fairly submitted that respondents had promoted applicants
as Agricultural Extension Officers Grade-I through Proceedings
No. A5(2)635/2011 dated 17.07.2014, Proceedings No.
A2/3684/2014 dated 18.07.2014, and Proceedings No.
A2/3684/2009 dated 19.07.2014. Therefore, no cause of action
survived in the matter and the O.A. was accordingly closed with
no costs.
3.3. The 4th respondent further stated that under
Fundamental Rule 26(aa), whenever the date of
seniority/promotion of a government servant is revised and
fixed from an earlier date, the pay of the Government servant
may be re-fixed notionally on the basis of notional duty in the
post from time to time. For this purpose, the periods during
which the Government servant concerned would have officiated
in the higher post, if actually promoted on the earlier date, may
be reckoned, and weightage for such notional period may be
given. However, the 4th respondent emphasized that monetary
benefits arising out of such re-fixation are strictly limited to the
duty period. Arrears shall be payable only for the period during
which the Government servant actually discharged the duties of
the post. It was clearly stated that arrears are not payable for
the notional duty periods assigned as a result of revision of
seniority or notional promotion.
3.4. This respondent also referred to judgments of the
Hon'ble Courts, which consistently applied the principle of "No
Work, No Pay." She submitted that this principle governs the
claim of petitioners, as such, they are not entitled to arrears of
salary for the period covering their notional promotion i.e. up to
the date when they actually took charge of the post. She further
submitted that though petitioners are being given the benefit of
notional promotion with effect from the date of occurrence of the
notional vacancy, the payment of severance allowance would
cease from the date of their notional promotion, as they cannot
be permitted to draw dual benefits of two different posts at the
same time.
3.5. The 4th respondent submitted that except for
Petitioners 4 and 9, all the other petitioners had already retired
from service prior to the granting of notional promotion.
Therefore, the only benefit available to them is in terms of
pension and pensionary benefits, which would be calculated
based on the notional promotion. She categorically denied that
any of the retired petitioners are entitled to monetary benefits
consequent upon notional promotion. She clarified that
Petitioners 4 and 9, who were in service at the time of issue of
the promotion orders, were actually given promotion, but even
in their case, the question of arrears of pay with effect from
17.04.1997 does not arise.
4. Heard Sri Jogram Tejavat, learned counsel for
petitioners as well as Smt. M. Shalini, learned Government
Pleader for Services-II on behalf of respondents.
5. This Court has considered the pleadings and
submissions of both the sides. The admitted facts are that
petitioners approached the Tribunal earlier, which, by order
dated 06.08.2014 in O.A.No.6118 of 2011, closed the matter
after recording that petitioners had already been promoted vide
specific proceedings dated 17.07.2014, 18.07.2014 and
19.07.2014. The O.As stood closed as no cause of action
survived. Once the Tribunal disposed the matter in such terms,
petitioners cannot re-agitate the very same issue in the present
writ petition.
6. It is also not in dispute that promotions were
granted notionally and that except for petitioners 4 and 9 who
were still in service, all other petitioners had retired prior to the
issuance of promotion orders. It is also not disputed that
notional promotions have been given effect for pensionary
purposes. The sole claim now raised is for payment of arrears
from 17.04.1997. However, under FR 26(aa) read with settled
law, including the principle of "No Work, No Pay" as held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. O.P. Gupta 1,
notional promotion given from a retrospective date does not
automatically entitle an employee to arrears of pay for the
notional period when he did not actually work in that post.
Monetary benefits arising out of re-fixation shall be limited to
the duty period and arrears shall be payable only for the periods
during which the government servant actually discharged the
duties of the post. Arrears shall not be payable for the notional
duty period assigned as a result of revision of seniority position.
The benefit is confined only to fixation of pay and pensionary
benefits. Therefore, reliance of petitioners on G.O.Ms.No.167
dated 17.04.1987 and other proceedings is misconceived,
inasmuch as those G.Os. only prescribe the scheme of
promotion but do not override the fundamental rules governing
arrears of salary. Similarly, reliance on Commissioner's letter
dated 26.07.1997 and NIC message dated 09.08.2004 does not
advance the case of petitioners, since those communications
(1996) 7 SCC 533
were ultimately considered and implemented by issuance of
promotion proceedings in July 2014 and the Tribunal itself
accepted the compliance and closed the case. It is also
pertinent to note that petitioners accepted their notional
promotions and consequent benefits without any demur, and
chose to raise this claim only thereafter. The principle of
constructive res judicata would therefore also apply, as the
issue stood concluded by the orders of the APAT.
7. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that petitioners are not entitled to any
arrears of salary from 17.04.1997 till their retirement, and the
writ petition is devoid of merit.
8. The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. No costs.
9. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any
shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
02nd September 2025
ksld
