AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J):
The applicant, a retired employee of the Geological Survey of India (GSI) who superannuated on 31.12.2023, has filed the instant Original Application seeking directions to the respondents to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the delayed release of arrear salaries pertaining to his retrospective promotions.
Sri S.N. Tamuli, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that while the applicant was serving in GSI, he was due for promotion to the post Assistant Store Keeper (Technical) w.e.f. 01.01.2001 and thereafter to the next higher post of Store Keeper (Technical) w.e.f. 24.03.2004 as per the provisions of the Recruitment Rules as there were vacancies. But he was not promoted to the said promotional posts in time for the lapses or fault of the Respondents. As his promotions to the aforesaid promotional post were delayed, the applicant along-with few similarly situated persons had approached this Tribunal vide Original Application No 412 of 2015 (Rafiquiddin Barbhuyan & Others -Vs- Union of India & Others), which was allowed vide order dated 10.12.2018 with the following observations/directions: -
"Accordingly, we hereby direct the Respondent authorities to hold DPC in respect of the present applicants and promote them from the date they are entitled for promotion to the post as demanded by them with all consequential benefits."
Against the said order, respondents had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong vide Writ Petition (Civil) No 170 of 2019 (The Union of India & Others -Vs- Shri Rafique Uddin Barbhuyan & 4 Others) against and the same was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 26.10.2021 (Annexure-A/2). Though respondents preferred Review Petition No MC (Review Pet.) No 2 of 2022 (The Union of India & Others -Vs- Shri Rafique Uddin Barbhuyan & 4 Others) against the said order of the Hon'ble High Court vide, but same was also dismissed vide order dated 17.03.2022 (Annexure-A/3). Thereafter, the respondents had approached the Hon'ble Apex Court vide SLP(Civil) Diary No (s) 27290 of 2022 (Union of India & Others -Vs- Rafique Uddin Barbhuiya & Ors) which was also dismissed vide order dated 14.10.2022 with the following observations:
"The special leave petitions are dismissed accordingly. However, the question of law is kept open".
Learned counsel has pleaded that after disposal of the SLP, the Respondents were reluctant to extend the benefit of the direction of this Tribunal by promoting the applicant to the post of Assistant Store Keeper (Technical) w.e.f. 01.01.2001 and thereafter, to the post of Store Keeper (Technical) w.e.f. 24.03.2004, therefore, applicant had approached this Tribunal vide C.P. 35 of 2021 (Shillong) (Annexure-A/5). Thereafter, the Respondents vide order dated 29.11.2022 (Annexure-A/6), had promoted the applicant to the post of Assistant Store Keeper (Technical) w.e.f. 01.01.2001 with all consequential benefits. Later, vide office order dated 05.01.2023 (Annexure-A/7), the applicant was promoted to the post of Store Keeper (Technical) w.e.f. 24.03.2004 with all consequential benefits. Thereafter, respondents have released the arrear salary of the promotional posts i.e. Assistant Store Keeper (Technical) and Store Keeper (Technical) without any interest.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that the applicant was deprived from his legitimate promotion in due course, due to the lapsed on the parts of the respondents. By virtue of Section 4 of the Interest Act 1978, the applicant is entitled to interest on the arrear salary as held by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Patna in the case of Faiyaz Ahmed Vs. State of Bihar and Others, reported in 2022 Supreme (Pat) 847. Further, the principle of ‘No Work No Pay’ is not applicable in the case of the present applicant. In support of his argument, learned counsel has placed the following case rulings:
State of Kerala & Others Vs. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 524 & Ramesh Kumar Vs. Union of India, reported in (2015) 14 SCC 335 and North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Ram Naresh Sharma reported in 2021 (3) SCT 538 that the principle of ‘No Work No Pay’ is not applicable in the cases wherein the employee was deprived of promotion for the fault of the employer.
As per the learned counsel, all these judgments were considered in the case of Chander Bhan Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. CWP No. 2946-2019 decided on 20.02.2026 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, while discussing the applicability of doctrine ‘No Work No Pay’.
Learned counsel has further contended that CAT, Principal Bench in O.A. No. 852 of 2012 [Shri R.L. Kashkari, Dy. Dg (Retd)] has allowed interest on the arrear salary to a similarly situated employee working under the respondents, which was implemented by them vide order letter dated 12.07.2021. Hence, as per the learned counsel, respondents herein cannot be given a differential treatment to the present applicant.
Per contra, Sri V.K. Bhatra, learned Sr. CGSC for the respondents has argued that upon final adjudication by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 14.10.2022, the Department promptly acted, conducted a review DPC, and extended notional promotion and seniority to the post of Assistant Store Keeper (Technical) w.e.f 01.01.2001 vide office order dated 29.11.2022 and subsequently vide office order dated 05.01.2023 to the post of Store Keeper (Technical) w.e.f 24.03.2004. Financial arrears were calculated and paid without any administrative delay thereafter.
Learned Sr. CGSC has placed reliance on Union of India -vs- B.M Jha, [(2007) 11 SCC 632] as well as State of Haryana & Ors. V. D.P. Gupta & Ors., [(1996) 7 SCC 533 to contend that back wages/interest are not automatically admissible for retrospective notional promotions under the “No Work No Pay" doctrine, as the applicant did not physically discharge the duties of the higher posts during the periods in question. He further emphasized that no previous court order explicitly directed the payment of interest
Learned Sr. CGSC has further contended that the case of Shri Roshan Lal Kaskhari is entirely different than that of the present applicant and reiterated that the present applicant is not liable for any such interest upon arrears of salary i.e. from 01.01.2001 to 23.07.2023 as he has already received his all consequential benefits i.e. ‘Seniority and Notional promotion in the post of ASK (T) and SK (T) in compliance of the Court Order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Sri S.N. Tamuli, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K. Bhatra, Sr. CGSC for the respondents were heard and perused the entire conspectus of the case.
From the perusal of records, it is evident that after the dismissal of the SLP (Civil) Diary No (s) 27290 of 2022 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 14.10.2022 (Annexure-A/4), the respondent authorities vide order dated 29.11.2022 (Annexure-A/6) had promoted the applicant to the post of Assistant Store Keeper (Technical) w.e.f. 01.01.2001 with all consequential benefits and as Store Keeper (Technical) w.e.f. 24.03.2004 with all consequential benefits vide office order dated 05.01.2023 (Annexure-A/7). It is also admitted by both parties that respondents have processed for grant of all consequential benefits including all the arrears of the promotional posts i.e. Assistant Store Keeper (Technical) and Store Keeper (Technical) and paid the same to the applicant without any interest. The plea of the respondents is that there was no order from any Court to grant interest on the consequential benefits. Therefore, applicant is not entitled any interest.
It is also admitted fact that in the previous O.A. No. No 412 of 2015, applicant did not make any prayer for interest. Only he prayed to hold Review DPC w.e.f. 01.01.2001 and to consider him for the next promotional post with all consequential benefits including arrears, which respondents have complied with by granting notional promotion i.e. seniority to the post of Assistant Store Keeper (Technical) w.e.f. 01.01.2001 vide order dated 29.11.2022 and subsequently to the post of Store Keeper (Technical) w.e.f. 24.03.2004 vide order dated 05.01.2023 with all the consequential benefits respectively in compliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Order dated 14.10.2022. We find no merit in this case as the applicant has failed to demonstrate any plausible ground for interference with regard to delay and laches.
Keeping in view of this, this Tribunal does not inclined to grant any direction for interest to the applicant because all the benefits were given to the applicant notionally; he had neither physically performed the duty of Assistant Store Keeper (Technical) w.e.f. 01.01.2001 to 11.01.2005 nor Store Keeper (Technical) w.e.f. 24.03.2004 to 03.02.2008.
In view of the above, instant O.A. does not merit interference and is accordingly dismissed. Pending M.A., if any, stands disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.