Department-caused appointment delays entitle selectees to notional benefits from the date lower-ranked candidates were appointed.

The petitioners participated in a recruitment process for Statistical Assistants in the Social Welfare Department and were placed in the select list.

After alleging that persons below them or outside the list had been appointed while they were not, they filed an earlier writ petition.

By order dated 20 October 2011, the Court directed the authorities to pass a speaking order; the Commissioner subsequently recognised their claim and directed their appointment.

The petitioners were appointed on 12 December 2012 and sought notional benefits from the date comparable appointees received the benefit of appointment, while accepting that actual pay would run from their joining date.

1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to notional service benefits from the date persons below them in the select list, or persons outside it, received appointments, where the delay in the petitioners’ appointments was not attributable to them.

2. Whether the principle of “no work, no pay” precluded granting those notional benefits.

The Court recognised the principle of “no work, no pay” as relevant to claims for pay for a period during which an employee did not work.

It also relied on the Coordinate Bench’s decision in Samiul Islam v. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2016 (5) GLT 489, and endorsed the directions in a similar matter decided on 21 September 2016, under which notional benefits could be granted for an earlier period.

The petitioners’ appointment was delayed despite their selection, and the Court found that the delay was attributable to the Department rather than to the petitioners. The Department’s subsequent speaking order had recognised their rights and led to their appointments.

Although the State invoked “no work, no pay,” the Court considered it unfair to deny notional benefits where persons below the petitioners in the select list, or persons outside the list, had received appointments earlier.

Consistent with the cited Coordinate Bench decision, the Court distinguished notional service benefits from actual salary for the period before the petitioners joined.

Actual pay was to be paid only from the dates the petitioners joined their respective posts.