'No Work No Pay' Not Applicable When Employee Kept Away From Work By Authorities Without His Fault: P&H High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that once an employee is granted retrospective or deemed promotion after being wrongfully denied advancement earlier, the employer cannot deny consequential monetary benefits by invoking the principle of “no work no pay.”

The Court allowed the plea filed by a government employee challenging clauses in departmental orders that denied him arrears of salary despite granting him retrospective promotions.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil noted, "the principle of “no work no pay” is not an absolute rule. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109, authoritatively held that the normal rule of "no work no pay" is not applicable to cases where the employee although he is willing to work is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his. The Court specifically observed that the employee cannot be placed in a worse position merely because the administration committed an error."

The judge pointed that in the case at hand, the petitioner was eligible and entitled to promotion when his juniors were promoted. He was deprived of promotional benefits due to administrative lapse. His juniors drew higher pay for years. To deny him monetary benefits now, after acknowledging his rightful claim, would amount to allowing the State to take advantage of its own wrong.

"The impugned clauses in orders dated 04.09.2020 and 12.11.2020 merely state that since the petitioner did not work on the promotional posts, he is not entitled to arrears. The orders do not consider the settled legal position laid down by the Supreme Court nor do they address the fact that the petitioner was wrongfully denied timely promotion. The reasoning is thus mechanical and unsustainable in law," the Court added.

It further said that he State, being a model employer, is expected to act fairly. When it corrects an illegality by granting retrospective promotion, it must, as far as possible, restore the employee to the same financial position in which he would have been but for the wrongful act.

The petitioner initially joined the department on daily wages as a PR Chowkidar on April 24, 1987 at Narwana. His services were regularised from April 1, 1993. He was later promoted as Clerk in 2011 and as Sub-Inspector in 2014.

However, certain officials junior to him, including Satbir Singh, were promoted earlier to the posts of Sub-Inspector and Inspector. Claiming discrimination, the petitioner submitted a representation in 2017 seeking promotion from the dates his juniors were promoted along with consequential benefits.

During the pendency of the petition, the State examined his claim and granted him deemed dates of promotion as Clerk with effect from September 9, 2008, as Sub-Inspector from April 20, 2012, and as Inspector from June 17, 2016 through orders dated September 4, 2020 and November 12, 2020.

However, the department inserted clauses denying arrears of pay for the retrospective period on the ground that the petitioner had not actually worked on the promotional posts.

The petitioner argued that once the State itself acknowledged that he was entitled to promotion from the date his juniors were promoted, denial of monetary benefits was arbitrary and discriminatory.

It was further contended that he was always eligible and willing to discharge duties on the higher posts but was prevented from doing so due to administrative error. Therefore, the doctrine of “no work no pay” could not be applied.

The Court considered the issue as whether an employee granted retrospective promotion due to wrongful denial of promotion is entitled to actual monetary benefits from the date his junior was promoted.

Justice Moudgil observed that by granting deemed dates of promotion, the department itself acknowledged that the petitioner had been wrongly denied promotion earlier.

The Court emphasised that the delay in promotion was not attributable to any fault or misconduct on the part of the petitioner but resulted from administrative lapse. Therefore, the employee could not be made to suffer for the employer's mistake.

The Court further noted that the principle of “no work no pay” is not an absolute rule. Relying on Supreme Court cases including Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (1991), State of Kerala v. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai (2007), Ramesh Kumar v. Union of India (2015) and North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Ram Naresh Sharma (2021), the Court reiterated that the doctrine does not apply where an employee was willing to work but was prevented from doing so due to the employer's wrongful action.

Justice Moudgil observed that denying financial benefits after acknowledging the petitioner's rightful claim would allow the State to take advantage of its own wrong.

Setting aside the impugned clauses in the departmental orders, the Court directed the State to grant the petitioner all consequential monetary benefits arising from his deemed promotions.

The authorities were ordered to release arrears of salary and refix his pay based on the retrospective promotions granted as Clerk (from September 9, 2008), Sub-Inspector (from April 20, 2012) and Inspector (from June 17, 2016).

Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Dr. Malvika Singh, DAG Haryana.

Title: Chander Bhan v. State of Haryana & Anr

Click here to read order