“No Work, No Pay” Cannot Reward Employer’s Own Wrong: Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Salary Arrears Where Promotion Was Delayed by Illegal Transfer

Case Name: Jaskaran Singh v. Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board and Another

Date of Judgment: September 15, 2026

Citation: CWP No. 25747 of 2016

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Namit Kumar

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the principle of “no work, no pay” cannot be invoked to deny salary and allowances attached to a promotional post where the employee was entitled to promotion from an earlier date but was prevented from performing the higher post’s duties because of the employer’s legally unsustainable action.

Once the employer recognises an employee’s entitlement by granting retrospective promotion, it cannot simultaneously deny the financial benefits of that promotion merely by describing it as “notional.” The entitlement to arrears must be determined by examining why the employee did not actually discharge the promotional post’s duties during the intervening period.

The rule of “no work, no pay” may apply where an employee voluntarily abstains from work, refuses a promotional assignment or is personally responsible for the delay in promotion. It has no application where the employee remained ready and willing to serve, continuously asserted his promotional right and was kept away from the post for reasons attributable entirely to the administration.

The Court further held that the employer cannot approbate and reprobate by conceding that an employee was entitled to promotion from a particular date while denying the corresponding pay for the same period. An employee cannot be made to bear the financial consequences of an administrative dispute or an unlawful decision subsequently corrected by the authorities themselves.

Summary: The petitioner joined Market Committee, Bhagta Bhaika, District Bathinda, as a Clerk on June 6, 1987 and was subsequently placed in the pay scale of Junior Assistant. His service was governed by the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Class III) Service Rules, 1989.

Under the applicable Rules, the next promotional post was Auction Recorder. Of the nine sanctioned posts of Auction Recorder in the Market Committee, 25% were to be filled by direct recruitment and 75% by promotion from eligible Clerks, Kandamen and other specified employees possessing at least three years’ experience.

In January 2008, Karamjit Singh, an Auction Recorder posted at Market Committee, Nurmahal, was transferred to Market Committee, Bhagta Bhaika. The petitioner challenged this transfer because it adversely affected his promotional prospects. After an earlier writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to approach the revisional authority, he filed a revision before the Secretary, Government of Punjab, Department of Agriculture.

By an order dated April 1, 2010, the revisional authority found that no vacancy was available against the direct recruitment quota when Karamjit Singh was transferred. His permanent transfer was therefore declared legally unsustainable and set aside. The authority directed the Market Committee to consider eligible employees for promotion against the available promotional vacancies.

Karamjit Singh challenged the revisional order before the High Court. During those proceedings, it was noticed that a direct recruitment vacancy had subsequently become available in 2010 and that Karamjit Singh was approaching retirement. He agreed that the petitioner could be placed above him in the seniority list. The matter was remitted to the authorities for fresh consideration.

Meanwhile, the petitioner was promoted as Auction Recorder with effect from April 24, 2012. Following reconsideration, Karamjit Singh was adjusted against a reserved promotional post for a specified period and subsequently against a direct recruitment vacancy. Thereafter, by an order dated October 25, 2013, the petitioner’s promotion was antedated notionally to January 21, 2008.

Despite recognising his promotion from January 21, 2008, the authorities denied him arrears of salary and other financial benefits for the period between January 21, 2008 and April 23, 2012. They relied upon Punjab Government instructions dated October 28, 1992 and invoked the principle of “no work, no pay,” arguing that the petitioner had not actually performed the duties of an Auction Recorder during the relevant period.

The High Court found that the petitioner had never declined the promotion and was always ready and willing to discharge the functions of the higher post. On the contrary, he had consistently pursued his promotional claim and challenged the transfer that obstructed it.

The delay arose from the administration’s decision to transfer another Auction Recorder to the Market Committee despite the absence of an available vacancy. That transfer was subsequently held to be legally unsustainable. The consequences of this administrative dispute could not be imposed upon the petitioner.

Relying upon the principles governing retrospective promotion and arrears of salary, the Court held that an employer cannot deny promotion when it becomes due, later acknowledge the employee’s entitlement by granting antedated promotion, and still refuse the consequential salary on the ground that the employee had not actually worked on the post. The employee’s inability to perform the higher duties resulted from the employer’s own action and not from any unwillingness or default on his part.

Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned orders to the extent that they denied the petitioner the pay and allowances attached to the post of Auction Recorder for the period from January 21, 2008 to April 23, 2012.