State Of Kerala & Ors vs E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai on 17 April, 2007
In the decision
reported in (2007) 6 SCC 524 (State of Kerala and others v. E.K.Bhaskaran Pillai),
Honble the Supreme Court held that no work no pay principle cannot be
accepted as a rule of thumb. However, if there is inaction on part of the
administration due to which the person was wrongly denied promotion,
then he is entitled to get full benefits including monetary benefits. The
Supreme Court in the said decision held that payment of monetary
benefits while granting promotion from an earlier date has to be decided
depending upon facts of each case. In paragraph No.4, it is held thus:- 4.
So far as the situation with regard to monetary benefits with retrospective
promotion is concerned, that depends upon case to case. There are various facets which
have to be considered. Sometimes in a case of departmental enquiry or in criminal case
it depends on the authorities to grant full back wages or 50 per cent of back wages
looking to the nature of delinquency involved in the matter or in criminal cases where the
incumbent has been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt or full acquittal. Sometimes in
the matter when the person is superseded and he has challenged the same before Court
or Tribunal and he succeeds in that and direction is given for reconsideration of his case
from the date persons junior to him were appointed, in that case the Court may grant
sometime full benefits with retrospective effect and sometimes it may not. Particularly
when the administration has wrongly denied his due then in that case he should be
given full benefits including monetary benefit subject to there being any change in law
or some other supervening factors. However, it is very difficult to set down any hard and
fast rule. The principle 'no work no pay' cannot be accepted as a rule of thumb. There are
exceptions where courts have granted monetary benefits also. Thus, it is not a rule
that on each occasion when promotion is denied, monetary benefits are to
be granted automatically and the facts of each case have to be decided
while considering the claim for monetary benefits.