Case Note & Summary
The Union of India filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, dated 08.06.2023 in O.A. No. 400 of 2018. The respondent, a Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) appointed in 1973, was promoted as Postman on 03.03.2014 with notional pay fixation from 01.02.2010, the date his junior was promoted. Earlier, in O.A. No. 256 of 2010, the Tribunal had directed consideration for promotion with age relaxation and all consequential benefits. That order was upheld by the High Court in W.P. No. 16784 of 2011. Pursuant to this, the department issued an appointment order dated 19.09.2014, fixing notional pay from 01.02.2010 and actual pay from the date of joining. The respondent did not challenge this order but after four years and post-retirement, filed O.A. No. 400 of 2018 seeking regularisation of appointment from 01.02.2010 with all monetary benefits for the period from 01.02.2010 to 02.03.2014. The Tribunal allowed the OA, granting monetary relief. The High Court held that the 'no work, no pay' principle applied as the respondent did not work in the post during the disputed period. The notional fixation adequately protected his seniority and pensionary rights. The earlier order had been fully implemented and the appointment terms were unchallenged. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order and allowed the writ petition with no costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion - Retrospective Promotion - Monetary Benefits - "No Work, No Pay" Principle - The respondent was granted retrospective promotion to Postman with notional pay fixation from 01.02.2010 but actual monetary benefits from the date of joining duty on 03.03.2014. The Court held that since the respondent did not work in the promoted post during the retrospective period, the principle of "no work, no pay" applies, and thus no monetary benefits are due for that period. (Paras 10-12)
B) Administrative Law - Implementation of Tribunal Orders - Interpretation of Consequential Benefits - The earlier Tribunal order in O.A. No. 256 of 2010 directed grant of consequential benefits from the date of appointment of the second respondent. The Court found that the department correctly implemented the order by granting notional pay fixation and actual benefits from joining, and thus the order was not violated. (Paras 12-13)
C) Service Law - Limitation and Delay - Belated Challenge - The respondent filed the Original Application after a lapse of four years from the appointment order and after retirement, which was considered as a factor against granting relief. (Para 13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was correct in directing monetary benefits for the period from 01.02.2010 to 02.03.2014 when the respondent was not actually working as Postman and had received notional pay fixation, considering the 'No work, no pay' principle.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed; the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 08.06.2023 in O.A. No. 400 of 2018 is set aside. No costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- No work
- no pay
- retrospective promotion
- notional fixation of pay
- consequential benefits
- age relaxation for SC candidates
- writ of certiorari
- implementation of court orders
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (07) 11
S. M. Subramaniam, N. Senthilkumar
Citation not available, 2026:MHC:2901
For Petitioners: ARL Sundaresan, Additional Solicitor General, assisted by J. Vasu, Senior Panel Counsel. For Respondent: S. Ramaswamy Rajarajan
Union Of India Rep By The Chief Postmaster General Tamilnadu Circle, The Superintendent of Post Offices Dharmapuri Division
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal
Remedy Sought
Petitioners (Union of India) sought to quash the Tribunal order granting monetary benefits to the respondent for the period from 01.02.2010 to 02.03.2014.
Filing Reason
The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the respondent's OA, directing payment of monetary benefits for the retrospective promotion period, which the Union of India argued was contrary to the 'no work, no pay' principle and the unchallenged terms of appointment.
Previous Decisions
Earlier, the respondent's OA No. 256 of 2010 was allowed by the Tribunal on 26.11.2010, directing consideration for promotion with age relaxation and consequential benefits. That order was upheld by the High Court in WP No. 16784 of 2011 on 12.03.2013. The department implemented it by appointing the respondent as Postman with notional pay from 01.02.2010 and actual pay from 03.03.2014. The respondent then filed OA No. 400 of 2018 seeking regularisation from 01.02.2010 with monetary benefits, which the Tribunal allowed on 08.06.2023.
Issues
Whether the respondent is entitled to monetary benefits for the period from 01.02.2010 to 02.03.2014 when he was not actually working in the post of Postman?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the respondent accepted the terms of the appointment order dated 19.09.2014 without challenge, and the notional pay fixation was granted; no work was performed, so no pay is due. The OA was filed after four years and after retirement, which is barred by limitation.
Respondent argued that the earlier Tribunal order granted all consequential benefits, which includes monetary benefits, and the department had not fully complied with it in spirit, hence the fresh OA.
Ratio Decidendi
The principle of 'no work, no pay' applies when an employee is retrospectively promoted but has not actually discharged duties during the retrospective period. Notional pay fixation for seniority and pensionary benefits does not entitle the employee to actual monetary benefits for the period not worked, especially when the terms of the appointment order are accepted and not challenged, and the earlier court directions have been fully implemented.
Judgment Excerpts
This Court is of the considered view that respondent was holding the post of GDS Packer/GDSMD till his date of appointment as Postman i.e., on 03.03.2014, the date on which he reported for duty as Postman.
Therefore, he was actually promoted with effect from 01.02.2010 as Postman, along with the notional fixation of pay and the actual monetary benefits were granted with effect from the date on which he reported for duty.
In such circumstances, while granting retrospective promotion, 'No work, No pay' principle would apply.
Since the order of appointment was granted in Proceeding, dated 19.09.2014 and said order remains unchallenged, no further consideration would be required.
Procedural History
The respondent was appointed GDS in 1973. He filed O.A. No. 256 of 2010 seeking promotion as Postman. Central Administrative Tribunal on 26.11.2010 directed review DPC and promotion with consequential benefits. High Court in W.P. No. 16784 of 2011 dismissed writ petition on 12.03.2013, confirming Tribunal's order. On 19.09.2014, the department issued appointment order promoting respondent as Postman with notional pay from 01.02.2010 and actual pay from 03.03.2014. After four years, respondent filed O.A. No. 400 of 2018 seeking monetary benefits for the period 01.02.2010 to 02.03.2014. Tribunal allowed the OA on 08.06.2023. Union of India filed the present writ petition challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
