Retrospective promotion does not automatically entitle an employee to full back wages for work not performed.

V.C. Allipur, an Assistant Teacher, sought promotion to a Lecturer post in Economics that fell vacant on the retirement of the incumbent on 28 February 2002.

The Management did not promote him and instead invited applications to fill the post by direct recruitment.

On 25 July 2005, the Director of Pre-University Education directed the Management to promote Allipur, finding him eligible and the only eligible candidate in the promotion cadre.

Following further proceedings, the Single Judge directed his promotion with effect from 25 July 2005, continuity of service and monetary benefits, but limited arrears of back salary to 50%.

The Management appealed against the promotion direction; Allipur appealed against the 50% limit on arrears.

Under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, and the Government notification dated 14 September 2004, the Director of Pre-University Education had authority to decide specified service matters concerning employees of private pre-university institutions, including promotion.

In an intra-court appeal, the appellate Bench should not interfere merely because another view is possible; interference is warranted where the Single Judge’s decision is perverse, demonstrably erroneous or affected by an error apparent in law.

The Court relied on Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority v. Scope Sales (P) Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 112, and the authorities discussed therein for this standard.

In considering back wages, the Court applied the principle of “no work, no pay” where the employee had not worked as a Lecturer during the relevant period.

The Division Bench considered the Director’s finding that Allipur was eligible for promotion and that the Management had failed to fill the promotion quota, as well as the Single Judge’s consideration of the Management’s objections.

It found neither decision perverse or otherwise warranting appellate interference; the Management’s appeal therefore failed.

On Allipur’s appeal, the Court noted that he had not worked as a Lecturer in Economics before the Single Judge’s order.

Applying “no work, no pay,” it held that the Single Judge’s award of 50% of arrears should not be increased to full back wages.

The direction to promote Allipur as Lecturer in Economics with effect from 25 July 2005, continuity of service and other monetary benefits remained undisturbed; arrears of back salary remained limited to 50%.