UOI Vs. CHHEDI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We regret with an apology at the outset of not being able to detect a sound jurisprudence norm underlying the two rival destinations reached in the various reported decisions; but find a factual basis for the distinction.

(2.) There exists a line of decisions and the lead decision which we may refer to, following a series of decisions, is the decision of the Supreme Court reported as Union of India & Ors. Vs. K.V.Jankiraman & Ors. (1991) 4 SCC 109. These decisions hold that the normal rule of `no work no pay' is not applicable to cases where an employee was willing to work but is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his. All these decisions have a common factual background. The common factual background is that the government servant was placed under suspension pending inquiry. Entitlement for promotion maturing. Recommendation's pertaining to promotion was kept in a sealed cover. Inquiry proceedings resulting in the government servant being exonerated. Sealed cover was opened and being recommended for promotion, the government servant was promoted. The courts held that under the circumstances, the suspension being not justified, the rule of `no work no pay' was inapplicable. The other line of decisions, where claim of a government servant for promotion is inadvertently not considered and the error being detected the government servant being promoted, was held not entitled to wages to the higher post. One such decision is reported as (2006) 10 SCC 145 Union of India & Anr. Vs. Tarsem Lal & Ors.

(3.) Chhedi Lal, the respondent could not earn promotion on account of his ACR grading being below the bench mark but not communicated to him. Not only that; the lower grading was by way of being downgraded vis--vis the previous ACR grading.