Principle of 'No Work No Pay' Inapplicable to Retroactive Promotion Denied Without Justifiable Reason

The petitioner, an Assistant Ayurveda Medical Officer, sought promotion to the post of Ayurveda Medical Officer.

In 2002, the State Administrative Tribunal (O.A. No. 2142/1994) directed the respondents to consider his case based on the 1993 DPC recommendations.

Following a subsequent High Court direction in 2013 (W.P. No. 13605/2007), the respondents issued a promotion order on 13.12.2013, granting the petitioner promotion retrospectively from 20.01.1994.

However, the respondents denied the petitioner back wages/arrears for the period between 1994 and 2013 by invoking the principle of "no work no pay".

The petitioner challenged this denial, asserting that the delay was attributable solely to the state.

Whether the principle of "no work no pay" can be applied to deny arrears of salary when a promotion is granted retrospectively due to the employer's initial failure to promote/consider an eligible candidate.

The Court applied the service jurisprudence principle that "no work no pay" is inapplicable if the employee was prevented from working in the higher post due to the employer's fault or unjustifiable reasons.

It specifically relied on the precedent of *C.B. Tiwari v. State of M.P. and others* [I.L.R. (2015) M.P. 2402], which established that applying "no work no pay" in such instances amounts to an illegal penalty.

It further cited *RB Guhe v. State of MP* [2008(5) M.P.H.T. 291] and *Anand Mohan Saxena v. State of M.P.* [2009(4) MPLJ 523] to affirm that without justifiable reasons for denying promotion, monetary benefits must follow retrospective seniority.

The Court observed that the petitioner was found fit for promotion by the 1993 DPC, yet he was forced into protracted litigation to claim his right.

The Court noted that since the state eventually granted promotion effective from 20.01.1994 pursuant to judicial orders, it was "unequivocal" that the initial denial was contrary to law.

The bench reasoned that the petitioner was "pitchforked" into litigation and was ready to work; therefore, the failure to serve in the promotional post was not his doing.

Consequently, the state’s reliance on "no work no pay" was deemed an unjustifiable imposition of a penalty where no fault of the employee existed.

The Court allowed the petition, quashing the denial of arrears, and directed the respondents to pay the arrears of salary for the post of Ayurveda Medical Officer effective from 20.01.1994 within 90 days.