MANOHAR BURDE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE rule no work no pay whether is attracted in the facts of the present case and if that be so can the Central Administrative Tribunal be said to have erred in refusing to grant arrears of salary to the petitioner consequent upon notional promotion given to him is the question raised in the present writ petition.

(2.) THE aforesaid question arises in the circumstances which we very briefly indicate hereunder : the petitioner filed an original application before Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai raising the grievance that he ought to have been promoted to Senior Time Scale and J. A. G. post from the date his juniors were promoted. The petitioner sought for correction of the seniority list by placing him above the juniors who were promoted without considering his case. He also sought for correction of the combined seniority list as well as arrears of pay and allowances to him as the consequence of the above relief. The original Application was filed by the petitioner somewhere in the year 1993 though according to him he was unjustifiably deprived of promotion in the year 1987 when his juniors were promoted. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of original application before the Tribunal, the petitioner was given notional promotion to the Senior Time Scale with effect from 29th February, 1988, the date on which he completed the requisite four years service. The petitioner was also notionally promoted to J. A. G. cadre from the date his juniors were promoted and necessary correction in the seniority list to that extent was also made. However the petitioner, before Tribunal, insisted that he ought to have been given promotion to the Senior Time Scale and J. A. G. post with effect from 30th June, 1987 as his juniors were promoted from that date. The Tribunal considered the grievance of the petitioner in that regard and by the order dated 5th July, 1999 directed respondents to consider him for notional promotion from 30th June, 1987, the date on which his juniors were promoted to the Senior Time Scale and to give him consequential fixation of pay if he was promoted from that date as he is entitled. As regards petitioners claim for arrears of salary consequent to notional promotion given to him, the Tribunal did not accede to that prayer. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed. The petitioner appears in person and strongly relies upon the following judgments:

(3.) IN Vasant Rao Raman, the Supreme Court was seized with a matter where a driver in the Central Railway filed a petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh initially which was transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal later on. The Tribunal by its order allowed the Original Application filed by the driver and directed the respondent to fix his seniority as Shunter "b" with effect from 12th June, 1961 and as Driver "c" with effect from 17th December, 1965. The Tribunal further directed that his increments shall be granted and counted with reference to the dates of seniority in the higher grade, but he shall not get any arrears of emoluments. The employee went in appeal to Supreme Court claiming that he was entitled to arrears of emoluments and there was no ground or justification to deny the same. The Apex Court in paragraph 4 of the judgment observed thus :