Interest is not payable on arrears arising from retrospective notional promotions without actual higher-post service.

The applicant, a retired employee of the Geological Survey of India (GSI), superannuated on 31.12.2023. He claimed that he was entitled to promotion as Assistant Store Keeper (Technical) with effect from 01.01.2001 and as Store Keeper (Technical) with effect from 24.03.2004, but the promotions were delayed due to the respondents’ lapses.

In O.A. No. 412/2015, the Tribunal directed the respondents to convene a DPC and grant promotion from the date on which the applicant became entitled, with all consequential benefits.

The Tribunal’s order was upheld by the Meghalaya High Court, the review petition was dismissed, and the respondents’ SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 14.10.2022, though the question of law was kept open.

Pursuant to the judicial proceedings, the respondents granted the applicant notional promotion as Assistant Store Keeper (Technical) with effect from 01.01.2001 by order dated 29.11.2022 and as Store Keeper (Technical) with effect from 24.03.2004 by order dated 05.01.2023.

The consequential arrears were subsequently paid, but without interest.

The respondents contended that the promotions were notional, that the applicant had not actually performed the duties of the higher posts, and that arrears and other consequential benefits had been paid promptly after the litigation concluded.

Whether the applicant was entitled to interest on arrears of salary arising from retrospective/notional promotions granted pursuant to earlier judicial directions, despite not having physically performed the duties of the promotional posts?

Whether the respondents’ failure to pay interest, when the earlier order directed grant of “all consequential benefits” but did not expressly award interest, was legally sustainable?

Whether the applicant had established sufficient grounds relating to delay or laches warranting interference by the Tribunal?

The Tribunal considered Section 4 of the Interest Act, 1978, as invoked by the applicant for claiming interest on delayed monetary benefits.

It also considered the principle that “No Work No Pay” may not apply where an employee was wrongly denied promotion due to the employer’s fault, as discussed in State of Kerala v. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai, Ramesh Kumar v. Union of India, and North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Ram Naresh Sharma.

Conversely, the respondents relied on Union of India v. B.M. Jha and State of Haryana v. D.P. Gupta for the principle that back wages or interest do not automatically follow from retrospective or notional promotion where the employee did not actually discharge the duties of the higher post.

The Tribunal further applied the principle that relief must be confined to the terms of the operative judicial directions: where the earlier order granted consequential benefits but did not expressly direct payment of interest, interest was not automatically payable.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s promotions were ultimately granted only notionally and that the arrears arising from those promotions had already been paid by the respondents.

Although the earlier order directed grant of promotion with “all consequential benefits,” it did not specifically award interest, and the applicant had not sought interest in the earlier O.A.

The Tribunal distinguished the applicant’s claim from cases where interest was granted for delayed payment of benefits and held that the applicant had not physically performed the duties of Assistant Store Keeper (Technical) or Store Keeper (Technical) during the relevant periods.

In light of the notional nature of the promotions, the absence of an express direction for interest, and the applicant’s failure to establish a sustainable ground concerning delay or laches, the Tribunal declined to extend interest on the arrears.

Since the applicant had not actually worked in the promotional posts and the earlier judicial orders did not expressly direct payment of interest, no further monetary relief was warranted.

The Original Application was dismissed, any pending M.A. was disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.