RAMLAL MALVIYA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is aggrieved by order dated 27.3.2002 (Annexure P-1) to the extent the petitioner has been given proforma promotion from 29.5.1997 and intervening period is treated as 'no work no pay'.

(2.) THE admitted position between the parties is that the petitioner's case was considered along with other eligible candidates for promotion on the post of Deputy S.P. Since the petitioner was facing a criminal case at that point of time, his fate was kept in the sealed cover and his contemporaries were promoted by order dated 29.5.1997. (Annexure R-2). The petitioner was acquitted from the criminal case on 13.10.1997 which was intimated to the department by the petitioner on 24.10.1997. The respondents thereafter opened the sealed cover and released the promotion of the petitioner on the post of Deputy S.P. w.e.f. the same date his juniors have been promoted. However, intervening period was treated as 'no work no pay'. The singular question is whether this action of the respondents is justified?

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , in my opinion, for the said period it is not justifiable to deny back wages/arrears of wages of promotional post to the petitioner. The Apex Court in (2007) 6 SCC 524 (State of Kerala Vs. E.K.Bhaskaran Pillai) opined that the principle of 'no work no pay' is not a thumb rule or straight jacket formula. It is to be applied by examining the facts and circumstances of the case. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, In my opinion, the action of the respondents in depriving the petitioner from arrears of wages of promotional post from 24.10.1997 to 27.3.2002 is wholly unjustifiable and arbitrary in nature.