Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose in service law concerning Haryana Service Engineers Class II Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) employees governed by the Haryana Service Engineers Class II Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1970. There was an inter se seniority dispute over promotion to higher echelons. Earlier, the Supreme Court by order dated 07-08-1990 in Civil Appeal No. 3837/90 directed preparation of a fresh seniority list strictly in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules, ignoring para 11.4 of the Manual and any inconsistent instruction or High Court observations, and directed that promotions already made not be disturbed. In compliance, the State prepared the seniority list and granted promotions to about 90 eligible persons with deemed dates, commonly 01-01-1983, though they actually joined on 01-12-1992, with some retiring earlier. The respondents filed writ petitions before the High Court claiming arrears of salary. The High Court by order dated 29-09-1993 in CWP No. 6760/93 and batch directed payment of arrears from deemed date to date of posting. The State appealed by special leave. The respondents were working in Haryana Service Engineers Class II PWD (Irrigation Branch). Their service conditions were governed by the 1970 Rules. A seniority dispute led to litigation; ultimately the Supreme Court directed preparation of seniority list per Rule 9. After the list was finalized, promotions were given with deemed date 01-01-1983; actual postings were made on 01-12-1992. For the intervening period (01-01-1983 to 30-11-1992), the respondents did not work in the promoted posts, though some retired and received notional promotion till retirement. The High Court allowed arrears for that period. The core legal issue was whether employees are entitled to arrears of salary when granted notional promotion from a deemed date but did not actually work in the higher post during that period, and whether the exception in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman applied. The State argued it complied with Supreme Court directions, there was no direction for arrears, and respondents were not entitled since they did not work; some were not parties to earlier proceedings. The respondents argued they were willing to work but were denied due to wrong seniority list, so entitled to arrears. The Supreme Court held that entitlement to work arises only after seniority list prepared under Rule 9, order of promotion passed, and posting made. Until then, respondents cannot be posted. Their contention that they were willing but denied work had no legal foundation because the seniority list and promotion process were prerequisite. The Court relied on Paluru Ramakrishnaiah and Virender Kumar, establishing no pay for no work; a person given notional promotion from deemed date is entitled only to retrospective step-up of pay scale, not arrears. It distinguished K.V. Jankiraman where employee was kept under suspension/sealed cover and later exonerated, entitling him to arrears; that ratio did not apply to regular promotion process. Since respondents admittedly did not work during the period, no arrears. The Supreme Court held the High Court's direction was wholly illegal, quashed the order, allowed the appeals, and directed no costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion, Seniority and Arrears of Salary - No Work No Pay - Haryana Service Engineers Class II Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1970, Rule 9 - The respondents were granted notional promotion with deemed date 01-01-1983 but actually joined the promoted posts on 01-12-1992, and some retired earlier. The State prepared the seniority list in compliance with the earlier Supreme Court direction of 07-08-1990 to follow Rule 9 strictly. The High Court directed payment of arrears from deemed date to posting date. The Supreme Court held that entitlement to work arises only after preparation of seniority list under Rule 9 and passing of order of promotion and posting; since the respondents did not perform the duties of the higher post during the relevant period, they were not entitled to arrears, following Paluru Ramakrishnaiah and Virender Kumar. The exception in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman applies only where the employee was willing but denied opportunity for no fault, such as sealed cover procedure, not to regular promotion process. Held that the High Court's direction for arrears was wholly illegal and quashed; appeals allowed (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether government employees who were granted notional promotion from a deemed date but did not actually perform the duties of the higher post during that period are entitled to arrears of salary for that period.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed; High Court order directing payment of arrears quashed; no costs. The respondents were held not entitled to arrears of salary for the period they did not actually work in the promoted posts, though they were entitled to notional promotion from deemed date for fixation of pay scale retrospectively.
Law Points
- No pay for no work
- notional promotion from deemed date does not entitle employee to arrears unless actually worked
- entitlement to work arises only after seniority list prepared and promotion order passed
- retrospective fixation of pay scale but no arrears
- exception for denial of opportunity without fault only in disciplinary/sealed cover cases
- Rule 9 seniority list condition precedent to promotion and posting.
