Employee Wrongly Denied Promotion Cannot Be Denied Salary Arrears: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects ‘No Work No Pay’ Argument
Case Name: Chander Bhan v. State of Haryana and Another
Date of Judgment: 20 February 2026
Citation: CWP-2946-2019
Bench: Hon’ble Justice Sandeep Moudgil
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that where an employee is granted retrospective promotion after being wrongly denied promotion earlier, the State cannot deny consequential monetary benefits on the ground that the employee did not work on the promotional post. The principle of “no work no pay” is not applicable where the employee was willing to work but was prevented from doing so due to administrative lapse.
Summary: The petitioner approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking quashing of clauses contained in orders dated 04.09.2020 and 12.11.2020 whereby the State granted him deemed promotions but denied arrears of pay and consequential monetary benefits. He further sought directions for grant of arrears and proper pay fixation arising from promotions to the posts of Sub-Inspector and Inspector in the Food and Supplies Department.
The petitioner had initially joined the department on daily wage basis as a Chowkidar on 24.04.1987 and his services were regularised in 1993. He was later promoted as Clerk in 2011 and subsequently as Sub-Inspector in 2014. However, certain officials junior to him were promoted earlier to the posts of Sub-Inspector and Inspector.
Claiming that his juniors had been promoted ahead of him, the petitioner submitted a representation seeking promotion from the same dates along with consequential benefits. During the pendency of the writ petition, the department examined his claim and granted him deemed dates of promotion as Clerk with effect from 09.09.2008, as Sub-Inspector with effect from 20.04.2012 and as Inspector with effect from 17.06.2016.
However, while granting such retrospective promotions, the department inserted clauses denying arrears of pay for the relevant period on the ground that the petitioner had not actually worked on those posts. These clauses formed the subject matter of challenge before the Court.
The petitioner argued that once the State itself had acknowledged that he was entitled to promotion from the dates his juniors were promoted, denial of monetary benefits was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. He contended that he was always eligible and willing to perform duties on the higher posts but was prevented from doing so due to administrative error on the part of the department.
The State, on the other hand, relied on the principle of “no work no pay” and argued that since the petitioner had not actually discharged duties on the promotional posts during the relevant period, he was not entitled to arrears of salary.
The Court examined the issue whether an employee who is granted retrospective promotion due to wrongful denial of promotion earlier is entitled to financial benefits from the date his juniors were promoted.
The Court noted that the grant of deemed promotion itself acknowledged that the petitioner had been wrongly denied promotion earlier. The delay in promotion was not attributable to any fault or disqualification on his part but was the result of administrative oversight. In such circumstances, the employee cannot be made to suffer for the employer’s mistake.
Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, the Court reiterated that the principle of “no work no pay” is not an absolute rule and does not apply where an employee is kept away from work by the authorities despite being willing to perform his duties. The Court also referred to State of Kerala v. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai and Ramesh Kumar v. Union of India, which recognise that retrospective promotion without monetary benefits may amount to an empty formality where promotion was wrongly denied due to administrative error.
The Court observed that the petitioner’s juniors had drawn higher pay for several years and denying him monetary benefits despite acknowledging the wrongful denial of promotion would effectively allow the State to take advantage of its own wrong.
It further held that the impugned orders denying arrears merely relied on the fact that the petitioner had not worked on the promotional posts and failed to consider the settled legal principles governing retrospective promotions. The reasoning was therefore mechanical and legally unsustainable.
Emphasising that the State is expected to act as a model employer, the Court held that once an illegality in promotion is corrected through retrospective promotion, the employee should as far as possible be restored to the financial position he would have occupied had the illegality not occurred.
Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the clauses in orders dated 04.09.2020 and 12.11.2020 that denied arrears of pay. The State was directed to grant the petitioner all consequential monetary benefits arising from his deemed promotions as Clerk with effect from 09.09.2008, Sub-Inspector with effect from 20.04.2012 and Inspector with effect from 17.06.2016, including arrears of salary and refixation of pay.