The Chhattisgarh High Court has delivered a significant ruling, stating that the principle of 'No Work, No Pay' cannot be applied mechanically when an employee is denied promotion due to the fault and inaction of authorities. The court directed the state government to pay 50% arrears of the salary difference to a retired tribal welfare department officer who was denied timely promotion despite being senior and found fit by a review departmental promotion committee (DPC).
Court's Observation on 'No Work, No Pay'
In its headnote on May 7, the court underscored that the principle of 'No Work, No Pay' is not universally applicable and must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, while partly allowing the writ petition filed by retired assistant commissioner G R Sahu, observed that the petitioner had been wrongfully deprived of promotion benefits for several years due to administrative lapses and delayed action by state authorities.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, who retired on December 31, 2016, challenged the denial of promotion to the post of deputy commissioner in the Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste Development Department. Though officers junior to him were promoted on July 13, 2011, Sahu's case was ignored despite his higher placement in the gradation list. The court noted that Sahu had repeatedly submitted representations seeking consideration for promotion. Subsequently, in 2014, the state government corrected his seniority retrospectively from September 7, 2006, placing him above one of the junior officers who had already been promoted.
Following this, a review DPC convened on February 20, 2015, found Sahu fit for promotion and recommended that he be placed above the junior officers. However, despite repeated representations and even directions issued earlier by the High Court in a previous writ petition, the authorities failed to grant him promotion during his service tenure. The judgment records that the petitioner was compelled to initiate contempt proceedings after the state failed to act on the court's earlier directions. Even after his retirement, no effective action was taken until he filed the present writ petition.
State's Denial of Arrears
During the pendency of the case, the state government issued an order on November 29, 2019, granting Sahu notional promotion retrospectively from July 13, 2011. His pension, gratuity and seniority were accordingly revised. However, the state denied him arrears of salary by invoking the principle of 'No Work, No Pay'.
Court's Rejection of Blanket Application
Rejecting the blanket application of the doctrine, the high court observed that the petitioner was always willing to discharge duties on the promotional post but was prevented from doing so solely because of the inaction and mistakes committed by the authorities. 'The petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the fault of the respondents,' the court observed, adding that the authorities 'woke up' only after repeated judicial intervention.
The court relied on judgments of the Supreme Court of India, including Ramesh Kumar vs Union of India and North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs Ram Naresh Sharma, wherein the apex court had held that the doctrine of 'No Work, No Pay' would not apply where an employee was illegally prevented from discharging duties despite being ready and eligible to work.
Balancing Equities
At the same time, the High Court balanced the equities by noting that the petitioner had not actually performed duties on the higher post. Considering the burden on the public exchequer, the court directed the state government to pay 50% of the difference in salary between the posts of Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner for the period from July 13, 2011, till December 31, 2016. The court directed the state to calculate and release the amount within four months, failing which the dues would carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
