Employees left unposted by State inaction are entitled to salary and consequential pay revision.

The respondent had been employed by a State-owned company that closed in 1998 and was subsequently deputed to the Backward Classes Department.

After being relieved from duty on 24 May 2008, he was not posted again until 4 November 2011, despite successive proceedings and representations concerning his placement.

He sought salary for that period and revision of pay under the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations.

The Single Judge allowed his petition, holding that the State’s failure to post him entitled him to that relief.

The State appealed; the Division Bench also condoned the 726-day delay in filing the appeal.

1. Whether the respondent was entitled to salary for the period during which he was not posted because of the State’s inaction.

2. Whether he was entitled to revision of pay in accordance with the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations for that period.

The Court applied the principle that an employee who is not at fault, but is prevented from working because the State fails to provide a posting, is entitled to appropriate salary relief for the resulting period.

It also affirmed that the employee’s pay must be revised in accordance with applicable Sixth Pay Commission recommendations.

The Court found that the respondent had been relieved from duty on 24 May 2008 and remained without a posting until 4 November 2011, not through any fault of his own but because of the State’s failure to post him.

On that basis, it agreed with the Single Judge that he was entitled to salary for the period and to the corresponding pay revision under the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations.

It dismissed the appeal and condoned the 726-day delay in filing it.