Back wages
SUMIT
(Querist) 22 October 2008
This query is : Resolved
If i can show that the denial of promotion is done with malafide intention to deprive me and benefit to some other,can i get higher pay from the date of retrospective promotion? tell me about the section of labour law in which it is defined...and also cite some sc judgement if there any.......
Prakash Yedhula
(Expert) 15 November 2008
There cannot be any claim of arrears for retrospective promotion. The judgment of the Supreme Court is given below:
Court : Supreme Court of India
Case No : Civil Appeal 5128 Of 2001
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. MATHUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU
Parties : UNION OF INDIA VERSUS B.M. JHA
Appearing Advocates : For the Appearing Parties: Alka Jha, Anil Kumar Jha, B.B.Singh, D.S.Mahra, Shreekant N.Terdal, Sunita Sharma, Advocates.
Date of Judgment : 24-10-2007
Head Note :-
Subject Index:
Constitution of India Article16
COMPARATIVE CITATIONS:
2007 AIR(SCW) 7023, 2007 (8) Supreme 135, 2008 (1) JT 77
( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
( 2 ) THIS appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 17-5-2000 passed by the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi where by the learned Division Bench upheld the order dated 11th January, 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench. None appears for the appellant.
( 3 ) THE Tribunal has taken the view that since the respondent herein has been granted RETROSPECTIVE PROMOTION from 27-8-1984 he must be paid arrears of pay and allowances for the higher post for the period 27th August, 1984 till 5th February, 1992.
( 4 ) AGGRIEVED against the order of the Tribunal dated 11 th January, 2000 the appellant herein filed a writ petition before the High Court and the high Court dismissed the writ petition affirming the order of the Tribunal. Hence, the present appeal.
( 5 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. It was argued by learned counsel for the respondent that when a RETROSPECTIVE PROMOTION is given to an incumbent normally he is entitled to all benefits flowing therefrom. However, this court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. D. P. Gupta and others, (1996) 7 SCC 533, 1996 AIR SCW 862 : AIR 1996 SC 2936 and followed in the case of A. K. Soumini v. State Bank of Travancore, 2003 (8) JT (SC) 35, 2003 AIR SCW 4014 : AIR 2003 SC 3137 has taken the view that even in case of a notional promotion from retrospective date, it cannot entitle the employee to arrears of salary as the incumbent has not worked in the promotional post. These decisions relied on the principle of no work no pay. The learned Division Bench in the impugned judgment has placed reliance on the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. K. V. L Narasimha Rao and Ors. , 1999 (3) JT (SC) 205. 1999 AIR SCW 2295 : AIR 1999 SC 2255 in our view, the High Court did not examine that case in detail. In fact, in the said judgment the view taken by the High court of grant of salary was set aside by this Court. Therefore, we are of the view that in the light of the consistent view taken by this Court in the abovementioned cases, arrears of salary cannot be granted to the respondent in view of the principle of no work no pay in case of RETROSPECTIVE PROMOTION. Consequently, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 17-5-2000 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court as also the order dated 11-1-2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench. The appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
