The principle of "no work no pay" is inapplicable where an employee is wrongfully deprived of a promotional post.

The petitioner was appointed as a Lab Attendant in 1968 and promoted to Assistant Teacher (Science) in 1987.

On 25.03.1998, he was promoted to Head Master and joined the post; however, the Secretariat of Public Instructions cancelled this promotion on 15.05.1998.

This cancellation order was challenged by an association (Sambhagiya Vigyan Snatak Sangh) before the Tribunal, which set aside the cancellation. This decision was upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court.

Consequently, the State issued a restoration order on 11.02.2009, granting the petitioner notional promotion from 1998 but denying actual monetary benefits (arrears) for the period between 25.03.1998 and 11.02.2009.

The State contended that since the petitioner did not work on the promotional post during that period, he was not entitled to pay under the "no work, no pay" principle.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to actual monetary benefits and arrears for the promotional post from the date of the original promotion order (25.03.1998) despite the "no work, no pay" principle.

The court relied on the landmark principle established in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (AIR 1991 SC 2010), which dictates that the "no work, no pay" rule is inapplicable when an employee is willing to work but is prevented from doing so due to the department's fault.

This was supported by State of Kerala v. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai (2007) 6 SCC 524 and the Division Bench ruling in C.B. Tiwari v. State of M.P. 2015(2) MPHT 132, emphasizing that consequential benefits cannot be denied if the denial of promotion was illegal.

The court reasoned that since the cancellation order dated 15.05.1998 was quashed by judicial intervention and attained finality, the petitioner must be treated as having been validly promoted from 25.03.1998.

The court rejected the State's "no work, no pay" argument, noting that the petitioner had actually joined the post initially and was only prevented from continuing due to the State’s illegal cancellation order.

Because the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to perform duties on the promotional post due to the respondent's fault—and not his own—the court held that he was entitled to full monetary benefits as a consequence of the setting aside of the cancellation.

The court ordered the payment of these arrears with 6% interest per annum within three months, failing which the interest rate would increase to 12% per annum until the date of actual payment.