Ram Swaroop Sharma vs State of M.P.

Sujoy paul, J.—Heard.

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.1.2006, Annexure P/1, to the extent the petitioner was deprived from arrears of salary on the promotional post and principle of "no work no pay" is made applicable.

The petitioner''s batch mates were promoted on the post of Upper Division Teacher (UDT). The petitioner aggrieved by his non-consideration and promotion filed an original application before the MP Administrative Tribunal, which was transferred to this Court and was reregistered as Writ Petition No. 2846/2003. The said writ petition was decided on 22.2.2005. The operative portion of the same reads as under:-

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner and extend the similar benefit as has been extended to other employees, like the petitioner, Virendra Singh Parihar, Tej Singh, Siyaram Katare and Madan Mohan Sharma and communicate the decision to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Thereafter the respondents passed the impugned order, Annexure P-1, and it was directed that the petitioner will get notional promotion on the post of UDT w.e.f. 9.12.1963. Assailing this order, Shri Anil Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court in the first round of litigation made it clear that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefits which were extended to other employees, like Virendra Singh Parihar, Tej Singh, Siyaram Katare and Madan Mohan Sharma. The petitioner was eligible and was all along willing to be promoted. His non-promotion was solely for the reason attributable to the respondents and, therefore, principle of "no work no pay" was not applicable.

Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the other side opposed the relief and submits that the petitioner is not entitled for arrears of wages because he has not worked on the promotional post.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This Court in M.P. No. 724/1993 (State of MP and another vs. Kulwantsingh Sachdeva and others), decided on 19.1.1995, affirmed the trial court''s order, whereby in similar circumstances the principal of no work no pay was held to be not applicable by the trial court.

In the opinion of this Court, the question involved is no more res integra. The Apex Court in Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman, etc. etc., opined as under:-

We are not much impressed by the contentions advanced on behalf of the authorities. The normal rule of "no work no pay" is not applicable to cases such as the present one where the employee although he is willing to work is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his. This is not a case where the employee remains away from work for his own reasons, although the work is offered to him. It is for this reason that F.R. 17(1) will also be inapplicable to such cases.

A Division Bench of this Court in R.B. Guhe Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, held that the principles of ''No Work No Pay'' shall not apply to a case where the lapses are on the part of the Government in not promoting a particular person.

In the light of aforesaid, it is clear that the non-promotion of the petitioner is solely attributable to the department and petitioner cannot be blamed for the same. The petitioner was willing to be promoted but was deprived from the fruits of promotion for the reason attributable to the department. Accordingly, the principle of "no work no pay" was erroneously applied in Annexure P/1. To that extent, Annexure P-1, is set aside. The respondents are directed to calculate and pay the actual benefits to the petitioner on the post of UDT for the period he occupied the said post, within four months. Petition is allowed. No costs.