AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
In the present Original Application (O.A.), the applicant had sought for the following relief(s):-
“(i) That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 20.11.2017 and order dated 24.11.2016 (Annex.A/1 & A/2) and DPC proceedings only in respect of the applicant and only to the extent by which the applicant has not been promoted in the grade pay of Rs.8700/- w.e.f. 01.07.2013 and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to consider and to promote the applicant in the scale of pay band Rs.37400-67000+GP Rs.8700 w.e.f. 01.07.2013 with all consequential benefits including the arrears of difference of pay and allowances with due date with interest.
(ii) Any other relief which the Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicants along with the costs of litigation.”
The O.A. was earlier disposed of by this Tribunal vide Order dated 23.01.2024 with the following directions:-
“7.1 In view of the above, we quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 20.11.2017 and 24.11.2016.
7.2 The respondents are directed to re-examine the applicant’s case afresh by convening a review DPC for considering his further promotion to the next higher pay scale at Level IV of Rs.37400 -67000 + GP 8700 w.e.f. 01.07.2013. In case the applicant is found fit for the said grade, he would be granted the benefit of promotion only on a notional basis which would entitle him for refixation of his pay/pension as per rules. No arrears shall be payable to the applicant.
7.3. The OA is accordingly disposed of in the aforementioned terms.
No order as to costs.”
Subsequently, an R.A. No. 44/2024 was filed by the applicant in the O.A., which was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 07.04.2025. The aforesaid Order dated 23.01.2024 passed in the O.A. was recalled and the matter was directed to be heard afresh, with the following observations:-
“5.3 The present review application proceeds on the notion that no financial benefit has been accorded to the applicant in as much as there is no question of re-fixation of the pension of the applicant. The review application has ignored the fact that “the benefit of promotion only on a notional basis, which would entitle him for re-fixation of his pay, has been consciously accorded touching upon the merits of the case.
5.4 In these circumstances, we are therefore of the view that the review application ought to be allowed. The matter is being taken up afresh, taking note of submissions of the respective counsels as to whether the applicant will be put to a monetary disadvantage or to arrive at a just decision as to what relief(s) can be granted to the applicant.
Accordingly, the matter was taken up for fresh hearing on 10.02.2026 and reserved for orders.
It is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Review DPC could not be convened as R.A. No. 44/2024 came to be allowed by this Tribunal. However, he vehemently opposed grant of any relief insofar as payment of arrears is concerned, on the principle of “no work, no pay”.
5.1 In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the respondents drew our attention to Clause 4.3 of the Promotion Policy (Annexure A/4), which reads as under:-
“4.3 Effect
The Scheme shall come into force with effect from 1.7.88. Promotions due to the staff shall be worked out from that date notionally, in all cases where the DPC has cleared. No arrears shall, however, be paid due to notional promotion and pay fixation.”
On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant referred to the Judgment dated 12.08.2016 rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 7609/2014 titled as Delhi Co-operative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. & Anr. vs Love Gopal Bhardwaj, whereby the following directions were issued:
“17. On the question of arrears, we would observe and hold that the respondents would be entitled to arrears for a period of three years from the date they had filed the first OA in the year 2012. However, while computing the arrears, the petitioners would take into account the in situ promotions, which the respondents would have earned during the period from the date of initial appointment till the relevant date in 2009. We have reproduced, in paragraph 10, the chart with the dates from which the first, second and third in situ promotions are claimed. Thus, the arrears while being restricted to three years prior to filing of the OA in 2012, would be computed by taking into account the in situ promotions that the respondents would have earned till the date from which the arrears are payable. The arrears would be computed accordingly. The impugned order of the Tribunal, to this extent, is modified.
As per the in situ scheme the question of promotion has to be examined by the DPC. The DPC will consider the case of the respondent in accordance with the said scheme and pass appropriate orders. As there has been considerable delay, it is directed that the DPC will be held within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order and an appropriate decision will be taken in terms of the policy dated 14.11.1995, within three months thereafter. The petitioners would make payment of arrears within five months from the said date. As we are modifying the impugned order to above effect, it would be fair and just if we direct the petitioners to also pay interest on arrears at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the impugned order i.e. 11.07.2014, till the date of payment of arrears.”
6.1 He submitted that it cannot be disputed that the applicant herein was similarly situated to the respondent in the case of Love Gopal Bhardwaj (supra). The respondents, therefore, ought to have adopted a holistic and equitable approach by applying the same parameters and principles as were applied in the ibid judgment, instead of denying similar relief to the applicant.
Upon perusal of the pleadings on record and considering the submissions made by both the sides, the short issue that survives for determination is confined to the nature of consequential relief, particularly whether the applicant, if found fit by the Review DPC for promotion to Level IV w.e.f. 01.07.2013, would be entitled only to notional benefits or also to monetary benefits.
It is relevant to note that the earlier order dated 23.01.2024, restricting the relief to notional promotion without arrears, stood recalled vide order dated 07.04.2025 in R.A. No. 44/2024. The recall was necessitated to reconsider whether denial of monetary benefit would place the applicant at a disadvantage and to arrive at a just and equitable determination. Therefore, the issue of arrears is now open and requires adjudication on merits.
The respondents have placed reliance upon Clause 4.3 of the Promotion Policy, which stipulates that promotions under the Scheme shall be worked out notionally and no arrears shall be paid on account of such notional promotion and pay fixation. The said clause, in ordinary circumstances, governs cases of delayed or retrospective promotion under the Scheme as part of its structural implementation.
However, the present case stands on a different footing. The applicant was compelled to approach this Tribunal due to the respondents’ action, which has already been found unsustainable by this Tribunal while quashing the impugned orders. The denial of consideration for promotion at the relevant time was not attributable to any fault on the part of the applicant.
The principle of “no work, no pay” primarily applied in cases where the employee has not rendered service for reasons attributable to him. It does not automatically apply in cases where the employee was willing to work in the higher post but was denied the opportunity due to an unlawful or unsustainable administrative decision. Therefore, the principle of “no work, no pay” cannot be mechanically invoked in a situation where the employee was prevented from securing promotion due to illegal or unjustified action of the employer.
Further, the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in a similar context relating to in situ promotion, in the case of Love Gopal Bhardwaj (supra), balanced equities by restricting arrears to three years prior to the filing of the O.A., instead of granting full arrears. The approach adopted therein harmonizes the policy framework, principles of limitation, and equitable considerations.
It has not been disputed that the applicant is similarly situated to the respondent in the aforesaid case. In matters concerning service benefits under the same Scheme, similarly placed employees cannot be treated differently without cogent justification. Uniform application of judicially settled parameters is integral to fairness in service jurisprudence.
At the same time, it would not be appropriate to ignore Clause 4.3 of the Promotion Policy altogether as the Clause reflects the policy intent to avoid automatic financial outflow in routine notional promotions. However, Clause 4.3 cannot be read in isolation so as to defeat judicial redress in cases of wrongful denial, and a policy provision cannot override constitutional principles or binding judicial precedent. The principle of “no work, no pay” shall not operate as a bar to grant of arrears, as the denial of promotion was not attributable to the applicant in the instant case.
In view of the foregoing analysis, we are of the considered view that it would be equitable to adopt the same balancing approach consistent with the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court in Love Gopal Bhardwaj (supra), already reproduced hereinabove, would meet the ends of justice so as to avoid an excessive financial burden while ensuring that the applicant is not unjustly deprived.
Accordingly, we modify the Order dated 23.01.2024 only to the extent that instead of benefit of promotion on notional basis without arrears, the applicant would be entitled to arrears of pay and allowances for a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the O.A., in line with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Love Gopal Bhardwaj (supra). The respondents shall compute the arrears after taking into account adjustments, if any, and release the same to the applicant within a period of three months from the date of convening of Review DPC and passing of the consequential orders. There shall be no order as to costs.