2015 (9) TMI 628 - SC - Indian Laws

Denial of actual benefit of pay in the post of Inspector of Central Excise - Held that - The very fact that the appellant was subsequently promoted, though notionally, indicates that the respondent-Union of India accepts the wrongful denial of such promotion to the appellant. The promotion made on the recommendation of the DPC would go to show that the appellant was fit and eligible for promotion on the dates when his juniors were promoted. The only ground that had prevailed upon the Union of India to refuse the appellant the benefit of actual pay following such notional promotion is that the appellant had not worked in the higher post of Inspector and Superintendent. While the aforesaid fact is correct what cannot be ignored is that the said consequence emanates from the initial decision of the Union not to promote the appellant to the higher post which was subsequently corrected by the Union itself. - High Court had erred in refusing the benefit of regular pay to the appellant with effect from the dates of his notional promotion to the post of Inspector and Superintendent respectively - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Notional promotion in the post of Inspector of Central Excise and Superintendent of Central Excise.
2. Denial of actual pay following notional promotion.
3. Central Administrative Tribunal's decision.
4. High Court's decision.
5. Applicability of previous judgments on monetary benefits with retrospective promotion.

1. Notional Promotion:
The appellant was granted notional promotion in the posts of Inspector of Central Excise and Superintendent of Central Excise with effect from specific dates based on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). The appellant's subsequent actual promotion, albeit notional, indicated the acceptance of the wrongful denial of promotion by the Union of India. The Union's initial decision not to promote the appellant to the higher posts was corrected later. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by a previous judgment, emphasizing the need to consider various factors in cases of retrospective promotions and monetary benefits.

2. Denial of Actual Pay:
Despite notional promotions, the appellant was denied the benefit of actual pay following the promotions because he had not worked in the higher posts. The Union of India's refusal to grant actual pay was based on the appellant's lack of experience in the higher positions. However, this denial stemmed from the Union's initial failure to promote the appellant, which was later rectified by the notional promotions.

3. Central Administrative Tribunal's Decision:
The Central Administrative Tribunal granted relief to the appellant, acknowledging the wrongful denial of promotion and the subsequent notional promotions. The Tribunal's decision was based on the appellant's eligibility for promotion as indicated by the DPC's recommendations and the subsequent actual promotions of the appellant's juniors.

4. High Court's Decision:
The High Court ruled in favor of the Union of India, refusing to grant the appellant the benefit of regular pay following the notional promotions. However, the Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in its decision and interfered with it, ultimately allowing the appeal and restoring the Tribunal's order in favor of the appellant.

5. Applicability of Previous Judgments:
The Supreme Court referred to a previous judgment highlighting the considerations for granting monetary benefits with retrospective promotions. The judgment emphasized that each case must be evaluated based on its unique circumstances, including factors like departmental inquiries, criminal cases, challenges to promotions, and wrongful denials of due benefits. The Court rejected the notion of a blanket rule like "no work no pay" and stressed the need to consider exceptions and supervening factors in determining entitlement to monetary benefits.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision, granting the appellant the benefit of regular pay following the notional promotions and restoring the Central Administrative Tribunal's order in favor of the appellant.