SANTHOSHKUMAR R vs DEPARTMENT OF POSTS AND OTHERS on 3 November 2026

O R D E R

PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)

This Miscellaneous Application No. 373/2026 has been filed seeking clarification of the order dated 07.10.2025 passed in OA No. 300/2025. By the said order, this Tribunal directed the respondents to declare the applicant's result in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) held on 10.01.2025 by opening the sealed cover "and provide all consequential benefits" accruing thereof to the applicant. Pursuant thereto, the respondents declared the applicant's result and granted him notional promotion with effect from 17.06.2021. However, according to the applicant, the respondents failed to comply with the Tribunal’s order in letter and spirit, despite the filing of a contempt petition. Consequently, the applicant has filed the present Miscellaneous Application seeking a clarification that the expression "all consequential benefits" includes arrears of salary in the promotional post from the date of notional promotion (i.e., 17.06.2021), alongside a prayer for the grant of such financial arrears.

2. Upon notice, the respondents filed their statement of objections to MA No. 373/2026 along with citations. No rejoinder was filed by the applicant. TARU LATA

TARU LATA

3. The matter came up for final hearing on 23.10.2026. Shri Jayanna G.R., learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri K. Gajendra Vasu, learned counsel for the respondents, were present and heard.

4. We have carefully examined the entire record and considered the rival contentions.

5. The applicant relies on the orders of this Tribunal in Smt. Hena Kousar v. Union of India & Ors. (MA No. 65/2022 in OA No. 1737/2015) and Ms. Antara Si v. Union of India & Ors. (MA No. 456/2022 in OA No. 694/2019), wherein it was held that consequential benefits include monetary benefits, namely arrears of salary in the promotional post from the date of notional promotion. On this basis, the applicant prays for a clarification of the order dated 07.10.2025 in OA No. 300/2025—which awarded "all consequential benefits accruing thereof"—asserting that while the respondents granted notional retrospective promotion from the date of eligibility vis-à-vis his junior (along with notional pay fixation and increments), actual financial benefits were granted only prospectively.

6. We have examined the order in OA No. 300/2025 dated 07.10.2025, the relevant portions of which read as follows: “16. We have applied our mind to the special and unusual predicament of the applicant that as he has qualified in the LDCE held on 10.01.2021. And at present, the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, dated 30.8.2024, which as asserted by the respondents has been taken up in a review petition remains in force as there is no other order to stay or modify the same. The status of the said review petition before the Hon'Grand High Court of TARU LATA

TARU LATA

Karnataka in FR No.268/2025 was inquired from the respondents, and it was brought to our notice that there is no further progress in the said matter. As the said Review Petition is not admitted yet and as there is no interim order of any kind in the said Review Petition (FR 268/2025), hence, at present, in our considered opinion the Hon'ble High Court order needs to be implemented by the respondents, although such compliance shall be subject to the final outcome of the said Review Petition pending. As the said Hon'ble High Court order dated 30.08.2024 in Writ Petition No.25540/2022 (S-CAT) still holds the ground, and if not implemented immediately will have cascading impact on the applicant's future promotional prospects as the respondents are taking and may further take up a plea that the applicant has not served for 3 years in the cadre of Postman, due to which he may not fulfil the experience criteria for his next promotion. So, it is possible that in spite of him qualifying in the second LDCE for the post of Postal Assistant, it may be asserted that he is ineligible otherwise and thus respondents may deny him the benefit. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the balance of convenience in this case lies with the applicant, and the ends of justice will be met if the respondents shall be directed to permit the applicant to join the promoted grade of Postman as per the earlier LDCE result in the sealed cover, by opening the sealed cover and to give all the consequential benefits to the applicant as prayed for. We observe that the applicant's case is unusual, that his termination was not based on any corruption charges, or disciplinary enquiry or any incompetence or inefficiency, but that was on a very technical ground of his educational status being legally disputed on technical grounds and which was not accepted by the Hon'ble High Court, hence, we are of the considered opinion that the applicant would be put to irreparable loss if he is not put immediately to the promotional post for which he has qualified in the LDCE dated 10.01.2021. However, we make it amply clear that this order shall remain subject to the final outcome of the said review petition (FR 268/2025) pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.

17. Considering the same, we pass the following orders: The respondents are directed to declare the result of the applicant in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination held on 10.01.2021 by opening the sealed cover “and provide all TARU LATA

TARU LATA

consequential benefits to the applicant accruing thereof”. However, it is made clear that this order will be subject to the result of Review Petition FR No.268/2025, pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Compliance shall be made with immediate effect and in no case later than four weeks from the date of this order no. 07.10.2025. The Original Application stands disposed of accordingly.”

Essentially, the applicant seeks a determination on the scope and meaning of the clause "and provide all consequential benefits to the applicant accruing thereof" in paragraph 17 of the order. The applicant contends that consequential benefits encompass financial benefits/back wages, whereas the respondents contend that the principle of "No Work No Pay" applies, disentitling the applicant to financial benefits prior to the date he actually assumed the higher duties of the promotional post prospectively.

7. The respondents assert that in terms of the Tribunal’s order, notional promotion was accorded w.e.f. 17.06.2021 (the date of eligibility), accompanied by seniority and non-monetary benefits. They submit that actual financial benefits are precluded under a settled line of authorities applying the "No Work No Pay" rule to retrospective promotions. In support, the respondents rely on the following decisions:

(i) Paluru Ramkrishnaiah & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., (1989) 2 SCC 541 = 1989 SCC (L&S) 375 (dated 28.03.1989).

(ii) Union of India v. B.M. Jha, 2007 AIR SCW 7023 = (2007) 11 SCC 632 (dated 24.10.2007).

(iii) Union of India & Anr. v. Thanglalmuon, W.P.(C) No. 7334/2012 (Delhi High Court, dated 20.05.2013). TARU LATA

TARU LATA

(iv) G. Sajeev & Muraleedharan Achary v. Union of India & Ors., OA No. 180/00034/2016 & OA No. 180/00438/2016 (CAT, Ernakulam Bench, dated 17.08.2018).

(v) Jeewraj Singh Shekhawat v. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7304 = 2024 (3) S.L.J (Delhi) 402 (DB) (dated 14.10.2024).

(vi) Dharmendra Kumar Singh & Ors. v. High Court of Jharkhand & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 83 = 2025 (1) SLJ (SC) 217 (dated 15.01.2025).

(vii) Moni Kumari v. Union of India & Ors., OA No. 170/00353/2024 (CAT, Bengaluru Bench, dated 13.02.2025).

(viii) Union of India & Anr. v. P.B. Narang, W.P.(C) 15310/2006 (Delhi High Court, dated 28.10.2025).

(ix) Sri Atul Bajapei v. Sri V.N. Ambade, Conc. Case (Civil) No. 4869/2024, Neutral Citation No. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17552 (Madhya Pradesh High Court, dated 27.02.2026).

(x) Pawan Kumar Tiwary & Ors. v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Civil Appeal No. (S) of 2025 [SLP (C) Nos. 26860-26863 of 2023] (Supreme Court, dated 19.08.2025).

(xi) Sri Rangu Sambasiva Rao v. Union of India & Ors., OA No. 310/00531/2024 & MA Nos. 310/00795 & 796/2025 (CAT, Chennai Bench, dated 07.08.2026).

8. We proceed to examine the citations relied upon by the applicant:

(a) The applicant relies on the order dated 28.03.2023 in MA No. 65/2022 in OA No. 1737/2015 (Smt. Hena Kousar v. Union of India & Ors.). In that matter, the original order dated 21.06.2016 in OA No. 1737/2015 had directed: "13. The OA therefore succeeds. The respondents are directed to convene a review D.P.C. to consider the applicant's case for TARU LATA

TARU LATA

promotion afresh after counting her regular service in the grade in the places where she worked, provided she fulfils other prescribed conditions. “The applicant is entitled to consequential benefits upon receiving promotion to the post of STA.” This entire exercise should be completed within three months of receiving a copy of our order. There is no order as to costs.”

Upon a clarification application in MA No. 65/2022, this Tribunal observed on 28.08.2023: “16. It is not in dispute that we are examining the right of the original applicant in the present case vis-a-vis the order dated 27.11.2019 passed in OA No.694/2019, wherein this Tribunal specifically granted all consequential benefits. The argument of the respondents that the applicant is not entitled to any monetary benefits for having not worked on the promotional post cannot be acceded to, in the light of the judgments referred to above, having regard to the expression "consequential benefits", Moreover, it is apparent that there is no fault on the part of the applicant. This Tribunal having analysed the material on record has categorically observed that the applicant has every right to be considered for promotion subject to completion of his probation and reduced years of service as per the OM of 1996. Accordingly, the respondents were directed to issue necessary order in this regard with all consequential benefits to the applicant within a period of two months from the date of issue of the said order. The said order has to be complied with in letter and spirit. No monetary benefits could be denied to the applicant giving a narrow interpretation to the phrase "consequential benefits". Thus we hold that the "consequential benefits" in the present set of facts and circumstances includes monetary benefits i.e., arrears of salary in the promoted post from the date of notional promotion given to the applicant. In view of the aforesaid, part compliance of the order cannot be accepted. The respondents are directed to comply with the order passed in OA No.1737/2015 keeping in mind the observations made herein above, inasmuch as the clarification to the phrase "consequential benefits. Such compliance shall be made in an TARU LATA

TARU LATA

expedite manner, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Accordingly, MA No.65/2022 stands disposed of. No order as to costs.”

A plain reading shows that the Tribunal took the view that monetary benefits cannot be denied by narrowly construing "all consequential benefits" where the order contains no express restriction or qualification excluding monetary relief.

(b) . The applicant further relies upon the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in MA No. 456/2022 in OA No. 694/2019 (Ms. Antara Si v. Union of India & Ors., dated 28.03.2023). In the underlying OA No. 694/2019 (order dated 27.11.2019), the Tribunal had directed: "It is abundantly clear that as per the OM of 1996, the applicant has every right to be considered for promotion subject to the completion of his probation and reduced years of service as per the note. Therefore, the respondents are directed to issue necessary orders in this regard with all consequential benefits to the applicant within a period of two(2) months from the date of issue of this order."

In MA No. 456/2022 seeking clarification of that order, the Tribunal held: “16. It is not in dispute that we are examining the right of the original applicant in the present case vis-a-vis the order dated 27.11.2019 passed in OA No.694/2019, wherein this Tribunal specifically granted all consequential benefits. The argument of the respondents that the applicant is not entitled to any monetary benefits for having not worked on the promotional post cannot be TARU LATA

TARU LATA

acceded to, in the light of the judgments referred to above, having regard to the expression "consequential benefits". Moreover, it is apparent that there is no fault on the part of the applicant. This Tribunal having analysed the material on record has categorically observed that the applicant has every right to be considered for promotion subject to completion of his probation and reduced years of service as per the OM of 1996. Accordingly, the respondents were directed to issue necessary order in this regard with all consequential benefits to the applicant within a period of two months from the date of issue of the said order. The said order has to be complied with in letter and spirit. No monetary benefits could be denied to the applicant giving a narrow interpretation to the phrase "consequential benefits". Thus we hold that the "consequential benefits" in the present set of facts and circumstances includes arrears of salary in the promoted post from the date of notional promotion given to the applicant. In the result, MA stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.”

9. On the other hand, the respondents rely upon a series of judgments affirming the "No Work No Pay" doctrine in retrospective promotions: 9.01 In Paluru Ramkrishnaiah & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., 1990 AIR 166 = (1989) 2 SCC 541 (dated 28.03.1989), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “The grievance of the petitioners, however, is that this promotion tantamounts to implementation of the order of this Court dated 2nd February, 1981 only on paper inasmuch as they have not been granted the difference of back wages and promotion to higher posts on the basis of their back date promotion as Charge-man II. As already noticed earlier certain writ petitions filed in Madhya Pradesh High Court were allowed by that Court on 4th April, 1983 relying on the judgment of this Court dated 2nd February, 1981 in Civil Appeal No. 441 of 1981. Against the aforesaid judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 4th April, 1983 Special TARU LATA

TARU LATA

Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 5987- of 1986 were filed in this Court by the Union of India and were dismissed on 28th July, 1986. The findings of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in its judgment dated 4th April, 1983 thus stand approved by this Court. In this view of the matter to put them at par it would be appropriate that the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 441 of 1981 may also be granted the same relief which was granted to the petitioners in the writ petitions before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. As regards back wages the Madhya Pradesh High Court held: "It is the settled service rule that there has to be no p ay for no work i.e. a person will not be entitled to any p ay and allowance during the period for which he did not perform the duties of a higher post although after due consideration he was given a proper place in the gradation list having deemed to be promoted to the higher post with effect from the date his junior was promoted. So the petitioners are not entitled to claim any financial benefit retrospectively. At the most they would be entitled to re-fixation of their present salary on the basis of the notional seniority granted to them in different grades so that their present salary is not less than those who are immediately below them." In so far as Supervisors 'A' who claimed promotion as Charge man II the following direction was accordingly given by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in its judgment dated 4th April, 1983 aforesaid:-- "All these petitioners are also entitled to be treated as Charge-man Grade II on completion of two years satisfactory service as Supervisor Grade-A. Consequently, notional seniority of these persons have to be re-fixed in Supervisor Grade A, Charge-man Grade-II, Grade-I and Assistant Foreman in cases of those who are holding that post ..... The petitioners are also entitled to get their present salary re-fixed after giving them notional seniority so that the same is not lower than those who are immediately below them." In our opinion, therefore, the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 441 of 1981 deserve to be granted the same limited relief. We are further of the opinion that it is not a fit case for initiating any proceedings for contempt against the respondents. TARU LATA

TARU LATA

In the result, the writ petitions fail and are dismissed. The Civil Miscellaneous Petitions in Civil Appeal No. 441 of 1981 are disposed of by issuing a direction to the respondents to give the appellants in the said Civil Appeal the same benefits as were given by the Madhya Pradesh High Court to such of the petitioners before that Court who were Supervisors 'A' and were granted promotion as Charge-man II by its judgment dated 4th April, 1983. In the circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs. R.S.S. Petitions dismissed.”

9.02 In Union of India v. B.M. Jha, 2007 AIR SCW 7023 = (2007) 11 SCC 632 (dated 24.10.2007), the Hon’ble Apex Court held: “We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It was argued by learned counsel for the respondent that when a retrospective promotion is given to an incumbent normally he is entitled to all benefits flowing therefrom. However, this Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. D.P. Gupta & Ors., [1996] 7 SCC 533 and followed in the case of A.K. Soumini v. State Bank of Travancore JT (2003) 8 SC 35 has taken the view that even in case of a notional promotion from retrospective date, it cannot entitle the employee to arrears of salary as the incumbent has not worked in the promotional post. These decisions relied on the principle of no work no pay. The learned Division Bench in the impugned judgment has placed reliance on the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. K.V.L. Narasimha Rao & Ors., (1999) 3 SC 205. In our view, the High Court did not examine that case in detail. In fact, in the said judgment the view taken by the High Court of grant of salary was set aside by this Court. Therefore, we are of the view that in the light of the consistent view taken by this Court in the abovementioned cases, arrears of salary cannot be granted to the respondent in view of the principle of no work no pay in case of retrospective promotion. Consequently, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 17.5.2000 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court as also the order dated 11.1.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principle Bench. TARU LATA

TARU LATA

The appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.”

9.03 In Union of India & Anr. v. Thanglalmuon, WP(C) No. 7334/2012 (dated 20.05.2013), the Delhi High Court held: “6. Clause 18.4.3 of the circular issued by the Department of Personnel and Training makes it categorically clear that if the officers placed junior to the officer concerned have been promoted, the concerned officer should be promoted immediately giving notional promotion from the deemed date when his juniors have been promoted but no arrears would be admissible. When the decision in the present case to give notional promotion, without any arrears, is taken on the basis of the aforesaid mandate of the circular, no fault could be found in the actions of the respondents in not making payment of the arrears to the petitioner. In my considered opinion, the principle of "No Work - No Pay” is also applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. While coming to the aforesaid conclusions I am fortified by the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Others Vs. O.P.Gupta, (1996) 7 SCC 533 wherein also the claim for arrears of pay from the date of notional promotion was rejected as the persons did not actually work in the said posts The petitioner in the present writ petition has also not challenged the legality of the aforesaid circular, which is in the nature of guidelines and in absence of any statutory rule governing the field, the W P (C) 7334/2012 7 of 8 mandate of the aforesaid circular would hold the field."

11. Thus, denial of arrears of pay to the respondent are fully justified.

12. We allow the writ petition and set aside the order dated March 01, 2012 passed by the Tribunal and dismissed O.A No.1768/2010.

13. No costs.”

9.04 In G. Sajeev & Muraleedharan Achary v. Union of India & Ors., OA No. 180/00034/2016 & OA No. 180/00438/2016 (dated 17.08.2018), the CAT, Ernakulam Bench held: TARU LATA

TARU LATA

“15. Learned counsel for the applicants Shri Sajith Kumar drawn our attention to the order of this Tribunal (at Annexure A8 of O.A. 180/00034/2016) in the case of Smt. A Divya, vs. UOI in O.A. 180/00928/2015 dated 24.05.2016 in which it was held as under: "5. We, therefore, direct the respondents to consider the applicant for appointment as Postman against the 2nd OBC vacancy of the year 2012 with effect from the date of entitlement and grant her appointment with effect from such date. This appointment is granted notionally without any back wages."

16. We have considered the above order. The applicant is similarly situated person with OA 3343/2016 claiming the similar relief. We see no reason not extend the benefit of the decision of above said O.A. Because applicants are not at fault of delay of appointment by the respondents. that the present applicants in both the O.As. succeed to the extent that they are entitled for notional seniority from the date of appointment to grant notional increments from the date of joining of the notional fixation of pay accordingly without any back-wages.

17. The Original applications are allowed partly on the above terms. Respondents are directed to complete the above exercise within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.”

9.05 In Jeewraj Singh Shekhawat v. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7304 = 2024 (3) S.L.J (Delhi) 402 (DB) (dated 14.10.2024), the Delhi High Court directed: “34. In view of the above facts and the position in law, we allow this petition by directing the respondents to grant retrospective seniority to the petitioner to the post of 2-I/C from the date on which his immediate junior Shri Ajay Kumar was granted such promotion, and to place him immediately above Shri Ajay Kumar in the seniority list in the rank of 2-I/C. The petitioner, however, while being granted all consequential benefits, including pay fixation, etc., will not be give the benefit of enhanced wages for the TARU LATA

TARU LATA

period he did not actually serve in the rank of 2-I/C. As far as NFFU is concerned, the petitioner shall again be granted the said benefit from 01.04.2017, that is, the date his immediate junior, that is, Shri Ajay Kumar has been granted the same.”

9.06 In Dharmendra Kumar Singh & Ors. v. High Court of Jharkhand & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 83 = 2025 (1) SLJ (SC) 217 (dated 15.01.2025), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed: “5. In light of the aforesaid judgment, as the appellants have successfully qualified the suitability test, they could not have been deprived of their legitimate right of promotion only on account of lower placement in the merit list. At this juncture, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the appellants have been subsequently promoted and the issue now remains in respect of their seniority alone. In view of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta and Another (supra), the appellants are certainly entitled for promotion from the same date the other officers from the select list prepared by the High Court of Jharkhand have been appointed to the post of District Judge in terms of notification dated 30.05.2019. Resultantly, the Civil Appeal is allowed and the orders passed by the High Court of Jharkhand is set aside. The appellants shall be entitled for notional promotion from the date other officers have been promoted to the post of District Judge in terms of notification dated 30.05.2019. They shall also be entitled for all consequential service benefits, including, seniority, increments, notional pay fixation etc., however, they shall not be entitled for any back wages.”

9.07 In Moni Kumari v. Union of India & Ors., OA No. 170/00353/2024 (dated 13.02.2025), a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal held: “10. We may refer the case of Union of India vs B.M. Jha 17 SC (SUPP) 2007 AIR SCW 7023, 2007 (11) SCC 632, AIR 2007 SC TARU LATA

TARU LATA

(SUPP) 1396, (2007) 8 SUPREME 135, (2007) 12 SCALE 630, (2007) 115 FACLR 1005, (2007) 60 ALLINDCAS 26 (SC), (2008) 2 (2007) 60 Al ALLMR 44 (SC) (SC) [24 October, 2007]. In the aforesaid case, the retrospective promotion was granted but the arrears of pay and allowances was not granted. The C.A.T. Principal Bench considered the matter and passed the order dated 11.01.2000 and said that since the respondents granted retrospective promotion from 27.08.1984 therefore, he must be paid arrears of pay and allowances for the higher post for the period 27th August, 1984 till 5th February, 1992. Against the aforesaid order, a writ was filed before the High Court and the High Court dismissed the writ. Thereafter, the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi upheld the order dated 11.01.2000 passed by the C.A.T. Principal Bench. The matter travelled up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned orders passed by High Court of Delhi as well as C.A.T Principal Bench. The Supreme Court said that in the case of retrospective promotion the employee will not be entitled to the pay of promotional post upon the basis of the principle of "no work no pay". The Supreme Court observed as under:- "We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It was argued by learned counsel for the respondent that when a retrospective promotion is given to an incumbent normally he is entitled to all benefits flowing therefrom. However, this Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. D.P. Gupta & Ors., [1996] 7 SCC 533 and followed in the case of A.K. Soumini v. State Bank of Travancore JT (2003) 8 SC 35 has taken the view that even in case of a notional promotion from retrospective date, it cannot entitle the employee to arrears of salary as the incumbent has not worked in the promotional post. These decisions relied on the principle of no work no pay. The learned Division Bench in the impugned judgment has placed reliance on the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. K.V.L. Narasimha Rao & Ors., (1999) 3 SC 205. In our view, the High Court did not examine that case in detail. In fact, in the said judgment the view taken by the High Court of grant of salary was set aside by this Court. Therefore, we are of the view that in the light of the consistent view taken by this TARU LATA

TARU LATA

Court in the abovementioned cases, arrears of salary cannot be granted to the respondent in view of the principle of no work no pay in case of retrospective promotion. Consequently, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 17.5.2000 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court as also the order dated 11.1.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principle Bench. The appeal is allowed. No order as to costs."

11. Therefore, it appears that in the judgment of Annexure -A3 the law of Supreme Court has not been considered. 11. Therefore, it appears that in the judgment of Annexure -A3 the law of Supreme Court has not been considered. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment cannot be followed. This Bench is bound by the law laid down by the Hon'顿 Supreme Court.

12. In the case of retrospective promotion the applicant is not entitled to arrears of pay from the date of retrospective promotion to the date of actual promotion.”

In Moni Kumari (supra), this Tribunal specifically observed that in cases of retrospective promotion, an employee is not entitled to arrears of pay for the intervening period, declining to follow orders that did not account for the binding Supreme Court precedents. 9.08 In Union of India & Anr. v. P.B. Narang, W.P.(C) 15310/2006 (dated 28.10.2025), the Delhi High Court observed: “27. We do not find the above test to be made out by the respondent. In fact, the learned Tribunal, in its Order dated 03.02.2003, while adjudicating the claim of the respondent for promotion to the post of CGS, directed that the case of the respondent be considered for the grant of such promotion from the date his juniors were promoted; however, it did not issue any direction with respect to the payment of arrears of pay in case the TARU LATA

TARU LATA

respondent was found entitled to retrospective promotion to the said post.

28. We, therefore, have some doubt as to whether the O.A. filed before the learned Tribunal, seeking arrears of pay upon the promotion being granted in compliance with the aforesaid order, was maintainable at all; such relief not being granted in the earlier O.A.

29. Be that as it may, in the absence of any reasons for attributing mala fides to the petitioners, and the said finding having been set aside by us in the present order, we are of the view that the principle of 'no work, no pay' would apply to the case of the respondent. The respondent, upon such promotion, would be entitled only to notional fixation of his pay for the purpose of determining his retiral benefits, as he had in the meantime superannuated.

30. In the view of the foregoing discussion, the Impugned Order cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside.”

9.09 In Sri Atul Bajapei v. Sri V.N. Ambade, Conc. Case (Civil) No. 4869/2024, Neutral Citation No. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17552 (dated 27.02.2026), the High Court of Madhya Pradesh ruled: “12. A bare perusal of the record shows that in compliance of the order dated 20/8/ 2024 passed by this Court, the petitioner has been promoted w.e.f. 15/09/2004 and his seniority has been fixed notionally and the period w.e.f.01/11/2005 till 28/10/2015 has also been directed to be taken into consideration for notional fixation of his salary. Further, it appears that the petitioner was already promoted w.e.f.29/10/2015 and he was receiving the benefits of the promotional post from the said date. Under such circumstances, denial of back-wages w.e.f.15/09/2004, does not amount to wilful disobedience of the order dated 20/08/2024 passed by this Court.

13. In view of the aforesaid legal position settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above-mentioned cases, it cannot be said that the petitioner, in the guise of an order passed by the High Court granting consequential benefits, is entitled to back wages also. And as such, this Court finds that the back wages are not TARU LATA

TARU LATA

covered in the expression 'all consequential benefits' and consequently, this Court does not find any case of wilful disobedience.

14. Accordingly, this contempt petition is dismissed.

15. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a fresh writ petition in respect of his remaining grievance regarding back- wages, if law permits.”

This decision directly addresses contempt jurisdiction and holds that an direction awarding "consequential benefits" does not comprehend back wages unless expressly so specified. 9.10 In Pawan Kumar Tiwary & Ors. v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Civil Appeal No. (S) of 2025 [SLP (C) Nos. 26860-26863 of 2023] (dated 19.08.2025), the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled: “45. While we have held that the appellants’ appointments were legal and within the sanctioned strength, we are also mindful of the settled principle that in the absence of actual service rendered, back wages are not ordinarily granted, particularly where the employee did not discharge any duties during the period of cancellation. Accordingly, while the appellants shall be entitled to continuity in service and restoration of seniority with effect from the date of their initial appointment on 24.04.2009, they shall not be entitled to arrears of salary for the period they were out of service. However, to protect their future service rights, they shall be granted notional fixation of pay and other consequential benefits subject to applicable rules such as increments and promotion eligibility.

46. We refer to the principles laid down in Union of India and Others v. K.V. Jankiraman and Others8, where this Court held that seniority and other service benefits can be protected through notional fixation, even if back wages are not granted. Similarly, in Gowramma C. (Dead) by legal representatives v. Manager (Personnel), Hindustan Aeronautical Limited and Another 9, it was held that the doctrine of "no work, no pay" does not preclude TARU LATA

TARU LATA

the grant of notional service benefits, particularly where the fault lies not with the employee but with the administration.

47. Thus, the appellants shall be deemed to have continued in service from the date of their original appointments for the purpose of seniority, promotion, and pensionary benefits, but shall not be entitled to actual back wages for the intervening period. Their pay shall be notionally fixed as per rules, and future emoluments shall be computed accordingly.

48. At the cost of repetition, we reiterate that our findings and observations made herein above are limited and confined to the appellants only and it does not apply to none else of these proceedings.

49. We reiterate for future guidance that where multiple appointments are challenged on general grounds, authorities and courts must undertake a detailed fact-specific analysis before concluding that all such appointments are void. The doctrine of severability must not remain a mere theoretical doctrine but must guide real administrative action and judicial reasoning in service matters.

50. In consequence to the above discussion, the appeals stand allowed and the appointments of the appellants made by Office Order Nos.758 and 759 dated 24.04.2009 are declared to be legal and valid by quashing the Office Order No.860 dated 7.05.2009 and the Office Order No.881 dated 22.07.2010 insofar as appellants are concerned. In the light of the facts of this case, we make no order as to costs.

51. We have also considered I.A. No. 184914 of 2024 seeking impleadment. The lis before us is confined to the appellants, namely, Pawan Kumar Tiwary, Hemant Kumar Choubey and Amar Kumar, whose appointments have been examined in detail above and found sustainable only because they were within the sanctioned strength. The scope of these appeals is thus case- specific and limited to them alone. The applicants in the present I.A. are not necessary parties for the adjudication of the issues arising here, and their rights, if any, are not concluded by this judgment. They are at liberty to pursue the remedies available to them in accordance with law and no opinion is expressed in that regard. Accordingly, the I.A. stands dismissed.”

TARU LATA

TARU LATA

9.11 In Sri Rangu Sambasiva Rao v. Union of India & Ors., OA No. 310/00531/2024 & MA Nos. 310/00795 & 796/2025 (dated 07.08.2026), the CAT, Chennai Bench observed: “16. Insofar as the claim for back wages is concerned, the issue is also no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that grant of retrospective or notional seniority does not automatically confer a right to arrears of salary for the period during which the employee did not actually discharge duties.

17. In Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the settled principle of "no work, no pay" and held that, ordinarily, an employee is not entitled to wages for the period during which no service was rendered. Similar principles have been reiterated in State of Kerala v. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai, (2007) 6 SCC 524, and Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India, (1989) 2 SCC 541, wherein it was held that retrospective seniority or promotion does not, by itself, entitle an employee to monetary benefits for the period during which he had not actually worked.

18. In the present case, although the delay in the applicant's appointment was not attributable to him and he is therefore entitled to notional seniority from the appropriate date in accordance with his merit position in the 2013 recruitment, the undisputed fact remains that he did not render any service to the respondents prior to his actual appointment on 22.11.2023. In the absence of actual service, and there being no exceptional circumstances warranting departure from the settled rule, the principle of "no work, no pay" squarely applies. Accordingly, while the applicant is entitled to notional seniority and all consequential service benefits flowing therefrom, he is not entitled to back wages, arrears of pay and allowances, or other monetary benefits for the period prior to his actual appointment. The claim for back wages is, therefore, liable to be rejected.

19. In the result, the OA is partly allowed in the above terms. Consequently, MA Nos. 795 and 796 of 2025 stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.” TARU LATA

TARU LATA

10. Against the backdrop of these authorities and within the narrow compass of this clarificatory Miscellaneous Application, the sole issue for determination is the precise meaning and scope of the phrase "and provide all consequential benefits to the applicant accruing thereof" as used in paragraph 17 of the order dated 07.10.2025 in OA No. 300/2025. We are mindful that a clarificatory application is strictly limited in scope; we are not re-adjudicating the applicant's original entitlement de novo. Rather, the question is whether the generic expression "providing all consequential benefits" encompasses only notional seniority, pay fixation, and related non-monetary benefits from the date of retrospective promotion, or extends to actual financial back wages.

11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter. While earlier orders of co-ordinate Benches in Smt. Hena Kousar (MA No. 65/2022) and Ms. Antara Si (MA No. 456/2022) took a broad view of the phrase "consequential benefits", the prevailing jurisprudence laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and followed in Sri Atul Bajapei (supra) establishes a distinct principle: in matters of retrospective promotion, application of the "No Work No Pay" rule is the baseline default.

12. The extensive catena of decisions cited by the respondents— including binding judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paluru Ramkrishnaiah, B.M. Jha, Dharmendra Kumar Singh, and Pawan TARU LATA

TARU LATA

Kumar Tiwary—firmly establishes that retrospective or notional promotion does not automatically confer a right to back wages for periods during which the employee did not discharge actual duties on the promotional post. In Sri Atul Bajapei (supra), the High Court explicitly held in contempt proceedings that the expression "all consequential benefits" cannot be stretched to include back wages unless the underlying order contains an express and unambiguous direction granting monetary arrears. In the absence of an express clause in the order dated 07.10.2025 awarding financial back wages or salary arrears, the generic term "all consequential benefits" must be interpreted in alignment with the settled default rule of "No Work No Pay." Consequently, it carries only notional pay fixation, seniority protection, and incremental benefits, excluding actual monetary back wages for the retrospective period.

13. In light of the foregoing discussion, we pass the following order:

ORDER:

It is hereby clarified that the generic expression "All Consequential Benefits" in the order dated 07.10.2025 passed in OA No. 300/2025 does not, in the facts and circumstances of the case, include financial benefits or back wages, as the same were not expressly directed therein. TARU LATA

TARU LATA

2. Miscellaneous Application No. 373/2026 stands disposed of accordingly.

3. There shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/-

Sd/- (DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J) /tl/ TARU LATA

TARU LATA