C. Bakthavatchalam vs Union of India

Leave granted.

The appellant was granted notional promotion in the post of Inspector of Central Excise by order dated 24th August, 2007 with effect from 5th September, 1988. Similarly, he was given notional promotion in the post of Superintendent of Central Excise with effect from 24th January, 2003 by another order dated 12th October, 2007. His pay was also notionally fixed from the said dates and actual benefit of pay was refused to him by rejection of a representation filed. The appellant therefore moved the Central Administrative Tribunal which granted him the relief. Aggrieved, the Union of India filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The High Court having answered the issue in favour of the Union of India, the appellant has filed this appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

It will be unnecessary to take note of the detailed facts save and except that the notional promotion of the appellant against both the posts with effect from the dates mentioned above were so made on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). The very fact that the appellant was subsequently promoted, though notionally, indicates that the respondent-Union of India accepts the wrongful denial of such promotion to the appellant. The promotion made on the recommendation of the DPC would go to show that the appellant was fit and eligible for promotion on the dates when his juniors were promoted. The only ground that had prevailed upon the Union of India to refuse the appellant the benefit of actual pay following such notional promotion is that the appellant had not worked in the higher post of Inspector and Superintendent. While the aforesaid fact is correct what cannot be ignored is that the said consequence emanates from the initial decision of the Union not to promote the appellant to the higher post which was subsequently corrected by the Union itself.

We have further noticed that the Tribunal''s decision is based on a judgment of this Court in State of Kerala and Others v. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai [(2007) 6 SCC 524]. The relevant part of the same had been extracted by the learned Tribunal in its order and which is reproduced herein below would support the view taken by the Tribunal in the facts of the present case :

"We have considered the decisions cited on behalf of both the sides. So far as the situation with regard to monetary benefits with retrospective promotion is concerned, that depends upon case to case. There are various facets which have to be considered. Sometimes in a case of departmental enquiry or in criminal case it depends on the authorities to grant full back wages or 50 per cent of back wages looking to the nature of delinquency involved in the matter or in criminal cases where the incumbent has been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt or full acquittal. Sometimes in the matter when the person is superseded and he has challenged the same before court or tribunal and he succeeds in that and direction is given for reconsideration of his case from the date persons junior to him were appointed, in that case the court may grant sometimes full benefits with retrospective effect and sometimes it may not. Particularly when the administration has wrongly denied his due then in that case he should be given full benefits including monetary benefit subject to there being any change in law or some other supervening factors. However, it is very difficult to set down any hard-and-fast rule. The principle "no work no pay" cannot be accepted as a rule of thumb. There are exceptions where courts have granted monetary benefits also."

(underlining is ours)

In the light of the above, we are of the view that the High Court had erred in refusing the benefit of regular pay to the appellant with effect from the dates of his notional promotion to the post of Inspector and Superintendent respectively, as noted above. We, therefore, interfere with the order of the High Court; allow this appeal and restore the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 20th March, 2012 passed in O.A. No. 906 of 2010.