[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Dr. Menka Bharti vs The Border Security Force on 5 February, 2026
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 239 of 2025
Dr. (Mrs.) Menka Bharti,
Chief Medical Officer (SG),
W/O: Dr. Raj Kumar Gupta,
Presently posted at 55th Battalion,
Border Security Force, Hanumangarh Road,
Azimgarh, Abohar-152116
Permanent Address:
Dr. Menka Bharti, Chief Medical Officer (Selected Grade),
W/O: Dr. Raj Kumar Gupta, M/S Moti Chand Santosh Kumar,
Moti Mahal, Laha Patti Ballia, (U.P.) - 277001.
............... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The Border Security Force,
Represented by its Director General, Block No. 10, CGO
Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
2. The Commandant, 48th Battalion,
Border Security Force, Sriganganagar, P.O:
Sriganganagar, Near Railway Station,
Rajashtan-335001.
3. The Commandant, 80th Battalion,
Border Security Force, Nishat, Srinagar,
Jammu & Kashmir, PIN: 191121.
4. The Commandant 55th Battalion,
Border Security Force, Hanumangarh Road,
Azimgarh, Abohar-152116.
5. The Commandant, 68th Battalion,
Border Security Force, Aiyanagar, Mundra Road,
Bhuj, Kutch District, Gujarat, PIN: 370001
......Respondent(s)
Page 2 of 15
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arijit Bhaumik, Advocate
Ms. Ishpa Chakma, Advocate
Mr. Uday Das, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bidyut Majumder, Dy. SGI
Date of hearing : 19.01.2026
Date of delivery of judgment &
Order : 05.02.2026
Whether fit for reporting : YES.
HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
Judgment and Order
[1] Heard Mr. A. Bhaumik, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Majumder, learned Dy. SGI appearing for the
respondents-Union of India.
[2] The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
"i. Issue notice upon the respondents.
ii. Call for the records.
iii. Issue rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the
Respondents shall not be mandated to grant the Petitioner regular pay scale
for the post of Chief Medical Officer (Selection Grade) w.e.f 04.08.2019
as per the Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme pursuant
to promotion of the petitioner to the said rank of Chief Medical Officer
(Selection Grade) w.e.f 04.08.2019 vide order dated 1st March. 2024.
AND
Issue Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the
Respondents shall not be mandated to pay the Petitioner the arrears of
financial benefits pursuant to extension of regular pay scale to the
Petitioner admissible to Chief Medical Officer (Selection Grade) under
Border Security Force w.e.f 04.08.2019.
Page 3 of 15
AND
Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the order
dated 1st March, 2024 shall not be interfered with to the extent that the
Petitioner has been denied the regular pay scale for the rank of Chief
Medical Officer (Selection Grade) w.e.f 04.08.2019.
AND
Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the order
dated 02.12.2024 passed by the Respondents whereby Respondents have
regretted the prayer of the petitioner for extension of regular pay scale
admissible to the rank of Chief Medical Officer (Selection Grade) w.e.f
04.08.2019 shall not be set aside and quashed........... ........"
[3] The case of the petitioner in brief is that she was enrolled under
the Border security Force as Medical Officer on 4th August, 2006. Thereafter,
she was promoted to the Rank of Senior Medical Officer on 4th August, 2010.
The petitioner got further promotion as Chief Medical Officer (Ordinary Grade)
on 4th August, 2015 and as Chief Medical Office (Ordinary Grade) she was
posted at 48th Battalion, Border Security Force at Teliamura, Khowai District,
Tripura till October, 2019. Thereafter, the Petitioner was posted as Chief
Medical Officer (Ordinary Grade) under the 88th Battalion, BSF at Teliamura,
Khowai District, Tripura till November, 2020.
[4] It is contended that the petitioner has served in various units as
per the order of the superior authority at different location under the
respondents. It is submitted that, vide communication dated 5th September,
2003 the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of Tripura has taken the decision for
implementation of new Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme
for Doctors in Central Police Forces. The said communication was also marked
to the Director General, Border Security Force along with the Director General
of other Central Forces. Since such implementation Dynamic Assured Career
Page 4 of 15
Progression (DACP) has been enforced in Border Security Force. Thereafter,
vide office memorandum dated 29th October, 2008 the Revised Dynamic
Assured Career Progression Scheme has been enforced by the Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of Tripura which has also been adopted and
implemented in the BSF. It is further contended that as per the said Dynamic
Assured Career Progression scheme, a Medical Officer on completion of 4
years is entitled to be promoted as Senior Medical Officer in PB-3 with Grade
pay of Rs. 6,600/- and a Senior Medical Officer on completion of 5 years in
grade pay of Rs. 6600 in PB-3 is entitled to be promoted as Chief Medical
Officer with Grade pay of Rs. 7600/ in PB-3 [Chief Medical Officer (Ordinary
Grade)]. It is also submitted that as per the said scheme, Chief Medical Officer
(Ordinary Grade) on completion of 4 years of service in grade pay of Rs. 7600/-
in PB-3 is entitled to be promoted as Chief Medical Officer with grade pay of
Rs.8700 in PB-4 [Chief Medical officer (Selection Grade) ].
[5] It is submitted by the petitioner that she completed 4 years of
service as Chief Medical Officer in Grade pay of Rs. 7600/- in PB-3 on
04.08.2019 and on that date, she was entitled to be promoted as Chief Medical
officer (Selection grade) with grade pay of Rs.8700/-in PB-4. But, due to
adverse entries in the APARs and PPARs of the petitioner, she was denied such
financial upgradation and promotion under the Dynamic Assured Career
Progression Scheme. According to the petitioner since, on 04.08.2019, the
petitioner was posted at 48th BN, BSF at Teliamura, Khowai District, Tripura
Page 5 of 15
and as such, the deprivation took place while the she was posted in the State of
Tripura and under the jurisdiction of this Court.
[6] It is further contended that the petitioner had challenged the
adverse entries in the APARs and PPARs of the petitioner by filing writ
Petition being WP (C) No. 951/2019 before this Court and vide Judgment and
order dated 30.05.2023 the adverse entries in the APARs and PPARs of the
petitioner was expunged and an observation was made by this Court to the
effect that the allegations as brought against the petitioner shall not be taken
into consideration as those were not on the basis of the assessment of
performance of the petitioner. It was also observed by this Court in the said
order dated 30.05.2023 that since the adverse remarks have been expunged, the
petitioner‟s performance shall be reviewed only on the basis of the remarks of
the Reporting Officer and a direction was also made by this Court that the
Director General, BSF shall complete the assessment within a period of two
months from the date when a copy of the said order be furnished by the
petitioner.
[7] It is also submitted that the respondents took more than a year to
comply with the direction of this Court and ultimately review DPC was held by
the Respondents on 05.12.2023 with reference to the DPC held on 26.05 2020.
In the review DPC, recommendation was made for promotion of the Petitioner
to the rank of Chief Medical Officer (Selection Grade) we.f 04.08.2019.
Accordingly, vide order dated 1st March, 2024 the petitioner has been promoted
Page 6 of 15
to the rank of Chief Medical Officer (Selection Grade) under Border Security
Force w.e.f 04.08.2019 under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression
(DACP) Scheme. But the pay of the Petitioner as Chief Medical Officer
(selection grade) has been made notional w.e.f 04.08.2019 and accordingly the
pay of the petitioner has been notionally fixed till the date of order dated 1st
March, 2024 without any arrears of regular pay scale. Situated thus, the
Petitioner has been deprived of the regular pay scale for the post of Chief
Medical Officer (Selection Grade) w.e.f 04.08.2019 till the date of order dated
1st March, 2024 i.e. the actual date of her promotion.
[8] The petitioner submitted representation for extension of regular
pay scale w.e.f. 04.08.2019 and arrears thereof to her from the said date but
vide communication dated 02.12.2024, the representation of the petitioner has
been rejected in terms of paragraph 18.4.3 of DOP&T OM dated 10.04.1989
and paragraph 20.04 1 of the DOP&T OM dated 22.07.2024. Being aggrieved
thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the afore-noted
reliefs.
[9] Mr. A. Bhaumik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that due to illegal adverse entries in the APARs and PPARs of the
petitioner, she was denied promotion to the rank of Chief Medical Officer (SG)
under the BSF w.e.f the date of entitlement of the petitioner that was
04.08.2019 as per the Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) scheme.
Therefore, it is due to the mistake of the respondents or illegality committed by
Page 7 of 15
them that the petitioner was deprived of her promotion form the actual date of
entitlement. He further submits that because of mistake, illegality or arbitrary
action at the behest of the respondents the petitioner cannot be deprived of her
financial benefit in the form of regular pay scale from the due date of
entitlement for promotion to the post of Chief Medical Officer (Selection
Grade) along with the arrears thereof.
[10] It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
even after the judgment and order dated 30.05.2022 passed by this Court in
W.P (C) No. 951/2019 expunging the adverse remarks in PPARs and APARs
for a certain period, the respondents took more than a year to implement the
said judgment.
[11] He further contends that even after promotion as Chief Medical
Officer (Selection Grade) under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression
Scheme, the employee concerned continues to perform the same duty and
responsibility which was being discharged as Chief Medical Officer (Ordinary
Grade) and therefore, the respondents cannot take the plea of „no work no pay‟
to deny the regular pay scale of the petitioner w.e.f. 04.08.2019 and arrears
thereof. He, therefore, urges this Court to quash the communication dated
02.12.2024 in which the respondents have regretted the prayer of the petitioner
for extension of the regular pay scale w.e.f. 04.08.2019.
Page 8 of 15
[12] To support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance on the following contents of the judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex
Court:
i. Vasant Rao Roman v. Union of India through the Central Railway,
Bombay and others reported in 1993 Supp(2) SCC 324:
".............3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also
perused the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has denied the entitlement
of emoluments and other benefits to the appellant on the basis of a
memorandum of the Government of India. Ministry of Home Affairs in
GI. MHA. OM No E. 7/28/63-Ests (A) issued on December 22, 1964. A
perusal of the aforesaid memorandum as detailed in para 14 of the order of
the Tribunal shows that it applied to the case of an officer who remained
suspended and could not be promoted due to his suspension or in case of
officers who could not get promotion due to departmental proceeding. The
Tribunal placing reliance on the aforesaid memorandum has taken the
view that on the analogy of the instructions mentioned in the aforesaid
memorandum and on the principle of 'no-work no-pay‟ on a particular
post, the appellant was not entitled to any arrears of pay.
4. In our view the Tribunal was wrong in applying the aforesaid
memorandum in the case of the appellant before us. Admittedly, neither
the appellant had been put under suspension nor any disciplinary
proceedings were pending against him. On the contrary, he had been made
to suffer on account of administrative reasons for which the appellant was
not responsible. There was shortage of literate Shunters at Gwalior during
1960. The appellant being literate was deputed for table work and
therefore for administrative reasons he could not complete requisite
number of firing kilometers. Thus, with no fault on his part his juniors had
been promoted as Shunters and Drivers and his claim was ignored on
account of having not completed the requisite number of firing kilometers.
The Tribunal itself has allowed the claim of the appellant regarding
seniority over his juniors, considering force in the contention of the
appellant. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we find no
justification whatsoever for not allowing the arrears of emoluments to the
appellant of the post of Shunter 'B' from June 12, 1961 and that of the post
of Driver 'C' from December 17, 1965............"
ii. Jyotshna Singh v. State of Jharkhand & others vide order dated 22nd
September, 2025 in case No. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15932 of 2024:
"........ 6. Before us learned counsel for the appellant specifically
pointed out the seniority list as produced at Annexure P1 indicates the
appellant at serial no.733. The claim of the appellant is that the appellant
ought to have been promoted to the post of Joint Secretary on the date on
which her immediate junior at serial no.734, Mrs. Uma Mahato was
Page 9 of 15
promoted. As per Annexure P7 order passed purportedly in compliance of
Division Bench order in the LPA, the appellant has been promoted to the
post of Joint Secretary only on 30.11.2022 and the financial benefits and
other facilities in the promoted post granted only from the date of
assumption of charge. As indicated in Annexure P1-seniority list, the
appellant‟s retirement date is 31.12.2023 and the order has come on
27.02.2024. The learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand read to us
Annexure P7 order in an attempt to uphold the promotion granted with
effect from 2022 while admitting that the appellant‟s immediate junior
Mrs. Uma Mahato was promoted on 13.03.2020.
7. The contention of the State is that the appellant was promoted to
the post of Additional Collector only on 19.05.2015 and the rules required
a minimum of 5 years‟ service for promotion to the next post of Joint
Secretary. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was held on
13.03.2020 when the appellant was under the rigor of punishment imposed
in departmental proceedings. Relaxation in the stipulated period of service,
according to the departmental resolution, which is read in the order, can be
made applicable only to an officer who is not responsible for the delay in
promotion or the main reason for not getting promotion is the delay in
departmental proceedings, none of which is applicable in the case of
appellant who had been imposed with punishment as on the date of DPC;
which clearly makes her ineligible for relaxation of the minimum required
period of service for considering her for promotion.
8. Admittedly, Mrs. Uma Mahato, junior of the appellant was
considered on 13.03.2020, obviously after granting relaxation. Even
according to the State, the denial of consideration of the appellant was
only on account of the punishment imposed. The punishment imposed
together with the entire departmental proceedings have been set aside for
reason of the proceedings itself being a sham proceeding and also for the
reason of long delay in initiation of the proceeding with respect to an
allegation of about 10 years in the past.
9. The punishment has been set aside and the departmental
proceeding found to be in violation of established principles.
Consequential benefits including retrospective promotion was directed.
The appellant should be considered for promotion from the date on which
her immediate junior, Mrs. Uma Mahato was considered in the DPC. Since
there is no other allegation against the appellant in strict compliance
directions issued by the Division Bench in LPA No.467 of 2022, the State
ought to have promoted the appellant to the post of Joint Secretary, on the
date on which her immediate junior, Mrs. Uma Mahato was promoted;
giving her relaxation in the minimum experience for consideration for
promotion as has been done in the case of Mrs. Uma Mahato.
10. The appellant is also entitled to consequential benefits as directed
in LPA No.467 of 2022 which includes the entire pay and allowances and
also, in the event of the appellant having retired, fixation of pension as per
the last pay drawn on the retrospective promotion granted. Appropriate
orders shall be passed by the respondents, and the appellant shall be paid
Page 10 of 15
the entire arrears of pay and allowances as a Joint Secretary right from the
date on which her immediate junior, Mrs. Uma Mahato was promoted and
her pension shall be refixed and arrears paid accordingly, if she has retired.
11. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of
four months and the entire amounts due shall be paid to the appellant
within the stipulated time, along with the written computation of the
financial facilities granted on such retrospective promotion. There shall be
no interest claimed by the appellant if the amounts are paid within the
stipulated time and if the State fails to carry out the directions in this
judgment, the appellant shall be entitled to 7% interest on the arrears
computed, from today and if the failure to comply with the directions in
this judgment is by any officer/s of the State, the State shall be free to
recover the additional liability of interest from such officers/employees
occasioning the delay after issuing notice and taking appropriate
proceedings against the said officers/employees............"
[13] Per contra, Mr. B. Majumder, learned Dy. SGI appearing for the
respondents-Union of India opposes the submission made on behalf of the
petitioner. He contends that as per the guidelines on Departmental Promotion
Committees issued vide Office Memorandum dated 22nd July, 2024 of
Department of Personnel and Training ESTT.(Estt.D) in the Government of
India in para 20.4.1, if an officer placed junior to the officer concerned have
been promoted, he should be promoted immediately and if there is no vacancy
the junior most person officiating in the higher grade should be reverted to
accommodate him. On promotion, his pay should be fixed under F.R. 27 at the
stage it would have reached, had he been promoted from the date of the officer
immediately below him was promoted but no arrears would be admissible. Mr.
Majumder, learned Dy. SGI placed reliance on the said contents in para 20.4.1
in the said Office Memorandum dated 22 July, 2024, which is quoted as under:
"..... 20.4.1 If the officer placed junior to the officer concerned have been
promoted, he should be promoted immediately and if there is no vacancy
the junior most person officiating in the higher grade should be reverted to
accommodate him. On promotion, his pay should be fixed under F.R. 27 at
Page 11 of 15
the stage it would have reached, had he been promoted from the date the
officer immediately below him was promoted but no arrears would be
admissible. The seniority of the officer would be determined in the order
in which his name, on review, has been placed in the select list by DPC. If
in any such case a minimum period of qualifying service is prescribed for
promotion to higher grade, the period from which an officer placed below
the officer concerned in the select list was promoted to the higher grade,
should be reckoned towards the qualifying period of service for the
purpose of determining his eligibility for promotion to the next higher
grade......"
[14] Mr. Majumder, learned Dy. SGI further submits that the
petitioner is not entitled for the service benefit for the higher post since during
that period she has not performed the duty entrusted to a higher post and only a
notional promotion was granted to her. He contends that there has to be „no pay
for no work‟ and the petitioner will not be entitled to any pay and allowance
during the period for which she did not perform the duties of a higher post
although she was given back date promotion to the higher post notionally. He,
therefore, urges this Court to dismiss the present writ petition filed by the
petitioner. To support his contention in this regard, learned Dy. SGI placed
reliance on the judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court passed in State of
Haryana and others v. O.P. Gupta and others reported in (1996) 7 SCC 533,
and in Paluru Ramkrishnaiah and others v. Union of India and another
reported in (1989) 2 SCC 541. The relevant contents of the said judgments as
referred by learned Dy. SGI are quoted as under:
i. State of Haryana and others v. O.P. Gupta and others reported in (1996) 7
SCC 533-
"..........4. The only controversy in these cases is whether the respondents
are entitled to arrears of salary for the period during which admittedly they
had not worked but they had been given notional promotion from the
deemed date. We have computed the deemed date as 1-1-1983. They have
joined the duty on 1-12-1992. Therefore, the period for which they
Page 12 of 15
claimed arrears would be from 1-1-1983 to 30-11-1992. We are informed
that some of them had retired even before that date and, therefore, they
have been given notional promotion till the date of their
retirement*********
6. Having regard to the above contentions, the question arises whether the
respondents are entitled to the arrears of salary? It is seen that their
entitlement to work arises only when they are promoted in accordance
with the Rules. Preparation of the seniority list under Rule 9 is a condition
precedent for consideration and then to pass an order of promotion and
posting to follow. Until that exercise is done, the respondents cannot be
posted in the promotional posts. Therefore, their contention that though
they were willing to work, they were not given the work after posting them
in promotional posts has no legal foundation. The rival parties had agitated
their right to seniority. Ultimately, this Court had directed the appellant to
prepare the seniority list strictly in accordance with Rule 9 untrammelled
by any other inconsistent observation of the Court or the instructions
issued in contravention thereof. Since the order had become final in 1990,
when the appeal had been disposed of by the Court by the above
directions, the State in compliance thereof prepared the seniority list in
accordance with the Rules and those directions and promotions were given
to all eligible persons and postings were made accordingly on 1-12-1992.
In the interregnum some had retired. As stated earlier, though the deemed
date has been given as 1-1-1983, the respondents cannot legitimately claim
to have worked in those posts for claiming arrears and, as a fact, they did
not work even on ad hoc basis.*************
9. In these appeals unless the seniority list is prepared and finalised and
promotions are made in accordance with the Rules on the basis of the
above seniority list, the question of entitlement to work in the promotional
posts does not arise. Consequently, the payment of arrears of salary does
not arise since, admittedly the respondents had not worked during that
period. The High Court was, therefore, wholly illegal in directing payment
of arrears of salary. The order of the High Court accordingly is
quashed......."
ii. Paluru Ramkrishnaiah and others v. Union of India and another reported
in (1989) 2 SCC 541-
"........19. Since, however, the judgment of this Court dated February 2,
1981 in Civil Appeal No. 441 of 1981 has not been challenged and has
become final, the next question which falls for consideration is as to what
further relief, if any, are the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 441 of 1981
entitled in pursuance of the civil miscellaneous petitions referred to above
filed by them. The reliefs which they have claimed have already been
indicated above. It is now not disputed that the appellants of this appeal
have in pursuance of the order of this Court dated February 2. 1981 been
given a back date promotion to the post of Chargeman 11 synchronising
with the dates of completion of their two years of service as Supervisor 'A'.
The grievance of the petitioners, however, is that this promotion
tantamounts to implementation of the order of this Court dated February 2,
Page 13 of 15
1981 only on paper inasmuch as they have not been granted the difference
of back wages and promotion to higher posts on the basis of their back
date promotion as Chargeman II. As already noticed earlier certain writ
petitions filed in Madhya Pradesh High Court were allowed by that court
on April 4, 1983 relying on the judgment of this Court dated February 2,
1981 in Civil Appeal No. 441 of 1981. Against the aforesaid judgment of
the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated April 4, 1983 Special Leave
Petitions (Civil) Nos. 5987-92 of 1986 were filed in this Court by the
Union of India and were dismissed on July 28, 1986. The findings of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court in its judgment dated April 4, 1983 thus stand
approved by this Court. In this view of the matter to put them at par it
would be appropriate that the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 441 of 1981
may also be granted the same relief which was granted to the petitioners in
the writ petitions before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. As regards back
wages the Madhya Pradesh High Court held:
It is the settled service rule that there has to be no pay for no work
i.e. a person will not be entitled to any pay and allowance during the
period for which he did not perform the duties of a higher post although
after due consideration he was given a proper place in the gradation list
having deemed to be promoted to the higher post with effect from the date
his junior was promoted. So the petitioners are not entitled to claim any
financial benefit retrospectively. At the most they would be entitled to
refixation of their present salary on the basis of the notional seniority
granted to them in different grades so that their present salary is not less
than those who are immediately below them.
Insofar as Supervisors 'A' who claimed promotion as Chargeman II the
following direction was accordingly given by the Madhya Pradesh High
Court in its judgment dated April 4, 1983 aforesaid:
All these petitioners are also entitled to be treated as Chargeman
Grade II on completion of two years satisfactory service as Supervisor
Grade A. Consequently, notional seniority of these persons have to be
refixed in Supervisor Grade A, Chargeman Grade II, Grade I and
Assistant Foreman in cases of those who are holding that post.......... The
petitioners are also entitled to get their present salary re-fixed after giving
them notional seniority so that the same is not lower than those who are
immediately below them....."
[15] Heard the submissions made at the Bar. Perused the record.
[16] Having considered the arguments advanced by both sides, this
Court has no hesitation to say that the position in which the petitioner was
working as Chief Medical Officer (Ordinary Grade) was on regular basis and
she was there by way of regular appointment and the scheme of DACP which
Page 14 of 15
has been introduced stands on a different footing as both are separate and
distinct. The nature of work, the petitioner has rendered needs to be looked
into. Since the petitioner has worked under the scheme as Chief Medical
Officer (Ordinary Grade) and presently claiming relief for the work of Chief
Medical Officer (Selection Grade) which she has not performed on regular
basis, same cannot be considered.
[17] It is also observed that as per paragraph 20.4.1 of the guidelines
on Departmental Promotion Committees issued vide Office Memorandum
dated 22nd July, 2024 of Department of Personnel and Training ESTT.(Estt.D)
in the Government of India, as quoted earlier, if an officer placed junior to the
officer concerned have been promoted, he should be promoted immediately and
if there is no vacancy the junior most person officiating in the higher grade
should be reverted to accommodate him. As per the said guidelines, on
promotion, his pay should be fixed under F.R. 27 at the stage it would have
reached, had he been promoted from the date of the officer immediately below
him was promoted but no arrears would be admissible. Hence, it is not open for
this Court to interfere with the aforesaid guidelines on DPC issued vide Office
Memorandum dated 22nd July, 2024 in the Government of India.
[18] This Court finds force in the submission made by Mr. Majumder,
learned Dy. SGI that the petitioner is not entitled for the service benefit for the
higher post since during that period she has not performed the duty entrusted to
a higher post and only a notional promotion was granted to her. This Court
Page 15 of 15
opines that in view of the judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court passed in State
of Haryana and others v. O.P. Gupta and others and in Paluru
Ramkrishnaiah and others v. Union of India and another (cited supra), the
case of the petitioner attracts the principle of „no pay for no work‟ and the
petitioner will not be entitled to any pay and allowance during the period for
which she did not perform the duties of a higher post although she was given
back date promotion to the higher post notionally. It is also opined that the
judgments as referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable
to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, the present writ
petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed and the decision of the
respondent(s) through the impugned communication dated 02.12.2024 is hereby
upheld.
[19] With the above observations and directions, the instant petition
is dismissed and thus, the same is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous
application(s), pending if any, shall also stand closed.
DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD, J.
Sabyasachi G.
SABYASACHI GHOSH Digitally signed by SABYASACHI GHOSH
Date: 2026.02.10 10:49:27 +05'30'
