N V JOB Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a retired employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board. He retired from service on 31st July 1990 after 33 years of service. In the normal circumstances, he ought to have been promoted as Assistant Accounts Officer with effect from 1st November 1989 and Accounts Officer with effect from 1st July 1990. That is not disputed in the counter affidavit also. The contention of the respondent was that the appellant was not promoted because there was an interim stay from the Supreme Court and the stay was subsequently vacated only after the retirement of the appellant. Since the appellant retired from service at a time when there was stay order, he was not given the benefit. The learned Single Judge found that the rejection of the appellant's claim was correct despite legal entitlement as at the time when the petitioner ought to have been promoted there was a stay from the Supreme Court and the stay was vacated subsequent to the retirement of the appellant. The appellant ought to have been promoted as Assistant Accounts Officer with effect from 1st November 1989 and Accounts Officer with effect from 1st July 1990, but he was not promoted because of the stay orders which were subsequently vacated after his retirement. He has not worked in the promoted post till his retirement. Therefore, he was denied salary in the promoted post and benefits of notional promotion.

(2.) It is the well known maxim that actus animus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice no man). The above maximum was accepted by the apex court in Rajesh D. Darbar and others v. Narasingrao Krishnaji Kulkarni and others ( 2003 (7) SCC 219 ). The apex court observed as follows:

(3.) Next issue to be decided is regarding his entitlement of higher scales in the promoted posts. He has not worked in the promoted posts. Therefore, he is not eligible for salary in the promoted posts for the above period on the principle of no pay for no work as held by the apex court in the decision reported in State of Haryana and others v. O.P. Gupta and others ( 1996 (7) SCC 533 ). See also the decision in A. K. Soumini v. State Bank of Travancore ( 2003 (7) SCC 238 ). His retirement benefits has to be calculated taking into account notional salary as if he was promoted with respective deemed dates and considering his deemed promotion as he had a legal right to be promoted while in service from the deemed date, though he is not entitled to arrears of salary. His pension and retirement benefits should be refixed and arrears shall be paid within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment.