GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. SATPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 2.12.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi, whereby OA No.2040/2010 filed by the respondent was allowed. The facts giving rise to the filing of the petition can be summarized as under:

(2.) It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners before us that since the respondent did not work on the post of UDC during the period in question, he is not entitled to salary of the higher post. The learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that since the petitioners themselves on account of acquittal of the respondent in the criminal trial and his exoneration in the departmental inquiry, treated the period of suspension to be on duty, there is no justification for denying the pay and allowances of the higher post to him. His contention is that since the respondent was denied promotion for no fault of his part and this was acknowledged by the petitioners by treating the period of suspension as period spent on duty, the respondent is entitled to pay and allowances for the higher post, despite his having actually not worked on that post.

(3.) The question as to whether an employee who is not granted promotion on account of pendency of disciplinary proceedings/criminal prosecution against him but is granted such promotion, on notional basis, as a result of his acquittal/exoneration, is entitled to arrears of pay for the period of notional promotion preceding the date of actual promotion or not, came up for consideration before Supreme Court in Union of India And Others v. K.V.Jankiraman And Others, 1991 AIR(SC) 2010. Before the Supreme Court, it was contended on behalf of the Government that the normal Rule being "no work no pay", a person cannot be allowed to draw the benefits of a post, the duties of which he had not discharged and to allow him to do so could be against the elementary Rule that a person is to be paid only for the work he has done and not for the work he has not done. As against this, it was submitted on behalf of the employees that on many occasions even frivolous proceedings are instituted at the instance of interested persons, sometimes with a specific object of denying the promotion and the employee concerned is made to suffer both mental agony and privations, which are multiplied when he is also placed under suspension and therefore, when he comes out with a clean chit, he has to be restored with all the benefits from which he was unjustly kept away. Dealing with the rival contention Supreme Court, inter alia, held as under: