Inter University Accelerator Centre v. Manisha Rani & Ors.

10. The Appellant Organization being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge has filed the present LPA, and the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.07.2019 has stayed the judgment only to the extent it relates to grant of consequential benefits.

11. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has vehemently argued before this Court that The Respondent No.3 was rightly promoted to the next higher post though he was not in the feeder cadre keeping in view the Government of India Handbook for Personal Officers, 2013. He has stated that under the sub-heading “Grouping of Posts”, it is provided that the post which are comparable in terms of duties and responsibilities and have a uniform payscale can be grouped or merged for efficiency and for providing better opportunities of promotion.

12. He has further stated that as the posts in question were comparable regarding the duties and responsibilities assigned to them, and they were having a uniform pay-scale, the posts were grouped and a person who was not even in the feeder cadre was rightly granted promotion after holding the DPC.

13. He has stated that the learned Single Judge has erred in law and fact in directing consideration of the case of the Respondent No.1 herein for promotion with consequential benefits.

14. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further contended before this Court that the posts of Stenographer and Personal Assistant have the same pay-scale and similar duties and once the post have been merged it would be immaterial that promotions are being done from different feeder cadres. Digitaaly

15. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that nowhere in the writ petition the Respondent no. 1 had questioned the merger of the posts. No prayer was made by the Respondent no.1 regarding the same. In fact, in the writ petition and the rejoinder affidavit, the Respondent no.1 herself had admitted that there was a merger and she wanted to take the advantage of the same merger for being promoted as Senior Assistant.

16. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submits that in the impugned order the Appellant has been directed to promote the Respondent no. 1 “with effect from 22.01.2014, with all consequential benefits”. The Learned Single Judge has not considered the “no work, no pay” principle of service law, which has been enunciated in several judgments of Hon‟ble Supreme Court. Learned Counsel for the appellant by placing reliance on Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India, (1989) 2 SCC 541, followed in Telecommunications Engg. Service Assn. v. Union of India, 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 222, State of Haryana v. O.P. Gupta, (1996) 7 SCC 533 and A.K Soumini v. State Bank of Travancore, (2003) 7 SCC 238 has stated that it has consistently been held in cases where the promotion is granted from an earlier date, no arrears of pay could be granted for the period the concerned employee has not actually worked on the post in question.

17. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Learned Single Judge in the impugned order has not considered that on the basis of the Annual Confidentiality Report (hereinafter “ACR”) placed before the DPC, the DPC recommended Mr. R.N. Dhyani (Respondent no. 3) for promotion on the post of Personal Assistant. It has been further stated that Mr. R. N. Dhyani had 25 years of service and had been stagnating without Digitaaly promotion since 2005 and was on the verge of retirement. He further submits that at the time the DPC met, the Respondent no. 1 was not eligible for promotion to the post of Personal Assistant. In the case of the Respondent no. 1, the ACRs for five preceding years became available only on 31.03.2014 and therefore she was not entitled to be considered for sole vacancy which arose in the year 2013.

18. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant also submits that even in case if a candidate is fulfilling the eligibility criteria for promotion to a particular post, he is not entitled to claim promotion as a matter of right and an employee is having a right of consideration only.

19. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 has vehemently argued that in spite of there being a judgment in her favour for granting her promotion, her case was not considered and, therefore, she submitted a representation dated 30.05.2019 to the Appellant and vide office order 04.07.2019 the Appellant promoted the Respondent no.1 and placed her in next higher level however failed to comply with the judgment, which ordered for grant of promotion of the Respondent no. 1 with all consequential benefits.

20. The Learned Counsel for Respondent no. 1 further submitted that being aggrieved on account of non-compliance of judgment dated 29.05.2019, she submitted a fresh representation dated 09.07.2019 to the Appellant organization. After considering her representation the appellant finally passed an office order dated 03.09.2019 and the office order stated that her promotion will be on notional basis and the consequential benefits will be governed by the final outcome of the LPA. Digitaaly

21. Learned counsel for Respondent no. 1 has further submitted that the Appellant erroneously promoted the Respondent no. 3, who merely holds the qualification of 12th standard, from the post of Assistant to the post of Personal Assistant, in spite of the fact that feeder cadre for promotion to post of Personal Assistant is Stenographer and not Assistant. The post of Assistant (clerical cadre) and Stenographer (technical cadre) are two different cadres having different promotional avenues. The experience of Respondent no. 3 was relevant only for the purposes of promotion to the post of Senior Assistant as per the prevailing Bye Laws/RRs and not relevant for the purposes of promotion to the post of Personal Assistant, which was a separate and independent cadre.

22. The Learned counsel for Respondent no. 1 further submits that appellant has not placed any rule/bye laws which provide for such grouping or merger of these two posts for purposes of promotion. There is no unified cadre with respect to the two post of Assistant and Stenographer or Senior Assistant and Personal Assistant. There is no unified or combined seniority list maintained by the Appellant for the two cadres. It has been further contended that in case of merger of two posts a formal order is required to be issued by the Government for merger of post and then only both the merged posts are identified as one post. However, in the present case, the posts of Stenographer and Assistant on the one hand and post of Personal Assistant and Senior Assistant on the other hand have always remained in different cadre.

23. Learned Counsel for the Respondent no. 1 further submits that the plea raised by the Appellant in promoting Respondent no. 3 in 2013 that the Digitaaly Government of India directives do not allow posts to be kept vacant for more than a year, also does not help the case of Appellant. Firstly, the post of Personal Assistant became vacant on 01.08.2013. Secondly, the Respondent no. 1 became entitled for promotion to the post of Personal Assistant on 22.01.2014. Even as per the Bye Laws of the Appellant organization, the ACR of the Respondent no.1 was to become available after 31.03.2014. The assessment work towards ACR‟s would have been completed within outer limit of May 15th. Thus, the ACR of Respondent no.1 would have become available before May 15th in the year 2014. Thus, it was the Respondent no. 1 who was entitled for promotion to the higher post i.e. Personal Assistant as per her cadre and the recruitment rules governing the field. Thus, promotion of Respondent no.1 to the post of Personal Assistant would have been within the time period of 1 year from the date of arising of vacancy i.e. 01.08.2013.

24. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 has further contended that the Appellant organization has taken a stand before this Court in respect of promotion of Respondent No.3 in the year 2013 stating that in the year 2013, one post was available and Government of India directives provide for filling up of the posts by the end of the year and, therefore, Respondent No.3, though, was not in the feeder cadre, was considered and promoted to the post of personal assistant. The Respondent No.1 has further contended that the reasoning assigned by the Appellant organization is an absurd reasoning. The post of Personal Assistant became vacant on 01.08.2013 and the Respondent No.3 was not in the feeder cadre, it was only Respondent No.1 who was in the feeder cadre and she became eligible for promotion on Digitaaly 22.01.2014 as she completed 5 years of service which was the mandatory qualification required for promotion.

25. The contention of Respondent No.1 is that the organization has favoured Respondent No.3 by promoting him to the post of Personal Assistant even though he was not in the feeder cadre and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the Writ Petition directing promotion of Respondent No.1 with all consequential benefits w.e.f. 22.01.2014.

26. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The matter is being heard at the motion hearing stage itself with the consent of the parties.

27. The undisputed facts of the case reveal the Respondent No.1 was appointed as a Stenographer on 22.01.2009. The recruitment rules governing the field provide for promotion to the post of personal assistant after completion of 5 years of service and, therefore, Respondent No.1 became entitled to the post of Personal Assistant on 22.01.2014. The record of the case reveal that the Appellant organization, though the Respondent No.1 was in the feeder cadre and the post of Personal Assistant became vacant on 01.08.2013, promoted Respondent No.3 to the post of Personal Assistant on 03.12.2013 from the post of Assistant.

28. It is noteworthy to mention that the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.3 were from different cadres. The relevant extract of the recruitment rules governing the field are reproduced as under: Digitaaly RECRUITMENT RULES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORTING STAFF FOR IUAC

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                                 IUAC                                                                                 │
│   Sl.       IUAC          Class    Pay      Whet     Age limit for direct   Educational and        Whether age       │
│   No.       Designati     ificat   in the   her      recruitment (for       other qualifications   &                 │
│                                    pay      select   Cent. & State Govt,    required for direct    educational       │
│   LPA 424/2019                                                                                       Page 16 of 35   │
│ Signature Not Verified                                                                                               │
│ Digitaaly Signed                                                                                                     │
│ By:BHUPINDER SINGH                                                                                                   │
│ ROHELLA                                                                                                              │
│ Signing Date:04.08.2023                                                                                              │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Class ificat ion Pay in the pay band + GP Whet her select ion or nonselect ion post Age limit for direct recruitment (for Cent. & State Govt, Autonomous Bodies, Univ. employees) Educational and other qualifications required for direct recruitment Whether age & educational qualification s for the direct recruitment is applicable for promotion/ deputation contract (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

1 Assistant Grou p C 5200- + N.A. 18-27 years (40 years) A Bachelor‟s degree of a recognized university with three years experience in the field of Purchase & Stores/ Accounts/ Establishment in a Univ./ Govt./ Autonomous Body/ reputed Pvt. Firm N.A.

2. Senior Assistant Grou p C 9300- +420 Non- Selec tion 30 years (35 years) A Bachelor‟s degree of a recognized university with atleast second class with fiveyears experience in the field of Purchase & Stores/ Accounts/ Establishment in a reputed Pvt. Firm N.A.

3. Section Officer Grou p B 9300- +460 35 years (40 years) Master‟s degree of a recognized university with five years experience in Personnel/ Purchase & Stores/ Finance/ Accounts/ Digitaaly General Administration in a University/ Govt/ Reputed Pvt. Firm OR A Bachelor‟s degree of a recognized university with second class and 8 years experience in related field. OR A Bachelor‟ s degree of a recognized university with at least second class and a pass at the final examination of Institute of Chartered Accounts or a pas sin SAS examination conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India or equivalent thereof- with three years experience in general administration/ finance and accounts in a University/Govt/ Autonomous Body public or private sector undertaking RECRUITMENT RULES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORTIVE STAFF FOR IUAC

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                                                                               IUAC                                       │
│                           Sl.    IUAC        Class    Pay      Whet     Age limit for direct   Educational and        Wh │
│                           No.    Designati   ificat   in the   her      recruitment (for       other qualifications   &  │
│                                  on          ion      pay      select   Cent. & State Govt,    required for direct    ed │
│                                                       band     ion or   Autonomous             recruitment            qu │
│                                                       + GP     non-     Bodies, Univ.                                 s  │
│                                                                select   employees)                                    di │
│                                                                ion                                                    re │
│                                                                post                                                   is │
│                                                                                                                       fo │
│                                                                                                                       pr │
│                                                                                                                       de │
│                                                                                                                       co │
│                           (1)    (2)         (3)      (4)      (5)      (6)                    (7)                    (8 │
├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                           1      Assistant   Grou     5200-    N.A.     18-27 years            A Bachelor‟s           N. │
│                                              pC       20200                                    degree of a               │
│                                                       +                 (40 years)             recognized                │
│                                                       2400                                     university with           │
│                                                                                                three years               │
│                                                                                                experience in the         │
│                                                                                                field of Purchase &       │
│                                                                                                Stores/ Accounts/         │
│                                                                                                Establishment in a        │
│                                                                                                Univ./ Govt./             │
│                                                                                                Autonomous Body/          │
│                                                                                                reputed Pvt. Firm         │
│                           2.     Senior      Grou     9300-    Non-     30 years               A Bachelor‟s           N. │
│                                  Assistant   pC       34800    Selec                           degree of a               │
│                                                       +420     tion     (35 years)             recognized                │
│                                                       0                                        university with           │
│                                                                                                atleast second class      │
│                                                                                                with fiveyears            │
│                                                                                                experience in the         │
│                                                                                                field of Purchase &       │
│                                                                                                Stores/ Accounts/         │
│                                                                                                Establishment in a        │
│                                                                                                Univ./ Govt./             │
│                                                                                                Autonomous Body/          │
│                                                                                                reputed Pvt. Firm         │
│                           3.     Section     Grou     9300-    Selec    35 years (40 years)    Master‟s degree of        │
│                                  Officer     pB       34800    tion                            a        recognized       │
│                                                       +460                                     university with five      │
│                                                       0                                        years experience in       │
│                                                                                                Personnel/                │
│                                                                                                Purchase & Stores/        │
│                                                                                                Finance/ Accounts/        │
│                           LPA 424/2019                                                                                   │
│ Signature Not Verified                                                                                                   │
│ Digitaaly Signed                                                                                                         │
│ By:BHUPINDER SINGH                                                                                                       │
│ ROHELLA                                                                                                                  │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

29. The aforesaid recruitment rules make it very clear that the post of Stenographer and the post of Personal Assistant are in different distinct cadres. As per the recruitment rules it is only the Respondent No.1 who was entitled for promotion from the post of Stenographer to the post of Personal Assistant and Respondent No. 3 who was not in the feeder cadre was certainly not at all eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Personal Assistant though she was having 5 years continuous service. The Respondent No.3 was not at all having 5 years continuous qualifying service as a Stenographer as provided under the recruitment rules as he was not a Stenographer.

30. The record of the case also reveals that the post of Personal Assistant and Senior Assistant are not comparable. The post of Personal Assistant and Senior Assistant may be carrying a similar pay scale but the recruitment rules provide them to be in different cadres and the post of Stenographer is in the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Personal Assistant. Digitaaly

31. The recruitment rules were never amended at any point of time and, therefore, merely by making a statement that the two posts were having a similar pay scale & similar responsibilities, they were clubbed for the purpose of promotion, does not help the appellant organization in any manner.

32. Another important aspect of the case is that the post of Assistant is filled up 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment and the post of Stenographer is filled up 100% by direct recruitment. It was only the Respondent No.1 who was entitled for promotion from the post of Stenographer to the post of Personal Assistant as she was in the feeder cadre and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in directing the Appellant organization to consider the case of Respondent No.1 for promotion from the date she became entitled for promotion by completing 5 years of service. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

33. The Appellant organization has very conveniently argued before this Court that the Respondent No.1 was having 25 years of service and was stagnating without promotion till 2005 and, therefore, as he was at the verge of retirement, he was granted promotion to the post of Personal Assistant even though he was not in the feeder cadre.

34. This Court is of the considered opinion that promotions cannot be granted de hors recruitment rules. If a person is not in a feeder cadre, the question of considering him and granting promotion does not arise and, therefore, merely because the Respondent No.3 has put in 25 years of Digitaaly service, it does not entitle him for promotion to the post of personal assistant as he was not a stenographer (feeder cadre) and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in granting promotion to Respondent No.1.

35. Another important aspect of the case is that the Respondent No.3 is no longer in service and, therefore, the judgment is not going to affect him adversely. He has worked on the next higher promotional post and has attained the age of superannuation and, therefore, the organization was justified in holding a review DPC and granting promotion to Respondent No.1 with retrospective effect as directed by the learned Single Judge. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

36. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of Palaru Ramakrishnaiah & Ors. Vs. UOI & Anr., (1989) 2 SCC 541, and his contention is that based upon the said judgment, back wages cannot be granted to a person who actually did not work in the promotional post. Paragraph Nos. 19 and 20 of the judgment reads as under:

20. 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.”

37. This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment. The aforesaid judgment was in respect of inter-se seniority and promotion relating Chargeman Grade II to the post Supervisor „A‟. The Chargemen who were holding diplomas were granted accelerated promotion. The dispute of inter-se seniority was resolved by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, and, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as it was a dispute regarding inter-se seniority and promotions from the post of Chargeman Grade II to Supervisor „A‟. The promotions were granted based upon the judgment delivered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the persons who were granted promotion based upon the judgment were granted notional promotion as they were assigned a higher seniority in the gradation list and also keeping in view that juniors were promoted earlier. In the present case, there is no such contingency involved. The present case is an open and shut case where a person who is admittedly in the feeder cadre was not promoted to the post of Personal Assistant, and a person who was not in the feeder Digitaaly cadre was promoted to the post of Personal Assistant depriving the Writ Petitioner of her valuable right of consideration for promotion to the next higher post. The judgment relied upon is distinguishable on facts and does not help the appellant at all.

38. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance upon judgment delivered in the case of Virender Kumar, General Manager, Northern Railways, New Delhi Vs. Avinash Chandra Chadha and Ors., (1990) 3 SCC 472. Heavy reliance has been placed upon Paragraph Nos. 15 and 16 of the aforesaid judgment, and the same read as under:

39. This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment. In the aforesaid case, again there was a seniority dispute. Rota Quota Rule was not followed. The higher posts were not vacant and the employees have not actually worked in the said post, and in those circumstances, they were not granted back wages. In the present case, the employee in question was illegally deprived of her valuable right of consideration for the next higher post. There was no seniority dispute involved, and a person who was entitled for consideration for promotion was not considered for promotion, on the contrary, a person who was not in the feeder cadre was promoted, and, therefore, keeping in view the totality of case, the learned Single Judge was justified in granting consequential benefits to the Respondent No.1 herein. Digitaaly

40. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has further placed reliance upon judgment delivered in the case of Telecommunication Engineering Service Assn & Anr. Vs. UOI & Anr., 1994 Supp (2) SCC 222. He has placed heavy reliance upon Paragraph Nos. 5 to 8 of the said judgment, which read as follows:

6. So far as the first point is concerned, it appears that the interventionists filed parallel proceedings through Junior Telecom Officers' Forum v. Union of India [1993 Supp (4) SCC Digitaaly 693: 1994 SCC (L&S) 366: (1994) 26 ATC 367: cited at pp. 90-116 of the paper book of C.A. Nos. 1813-13-A of 1993] and this Court (J.S. Verma and Anand, JJ.) in an elaborate judgment took the same view as that of the Allahabad High Court noticed by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in the aforesaid case of Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan [ Writ Petition Nos. 2739 and 2652 of 1991, decided on 20-2-1985] which has become final and has been upheld by this Court on merits. It is thus not necessary to dwell on the first question decided by the Principal Bench any further.

7. The only question which survives relates to declining the order for payment of back wages from the due date of promotion to the petitioners before the Tribunal and some of the appellants/petitioners before us.

8. It would be noticed that the judgment of the Allahabad High Court was delivered in writ petitions which were filed by two individuals as far back as 1981 and the judgment was delivered in 1985 which was affirmed by this Court on 8-4-1986. Most of the petitioners before the Tribunal filed their applications claiming promotion from earlier date on the basis of the Allahabad High Court judgment only in 1988. They will get refixation of their seniority and notional promotion with retrospective effect and would be entitled to fixation of their present pay which should not be less than to those who are immediately below them and the question is only whether they would be entitled to back wages from the date of notional promotion. We are of the view that the Tribunal was justified, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case and enormity of the problem dealing with 10,000 persons, in declining to grant back wages except with effect from the date they actually worked on the higher post. The same view was taken by this Court in the aforesaid judgment of Paluru Ramkrishnaiah [(1989) 2 SCC 541: 1989 SCC (L&S) 375: (1989) 10 ATC 378: (1989) 1 Scale 830] where this Court declined similar reliefs.” Digitaaly

41. This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment. In the aforesaid case, there was a claim for retrospective promotion benefiting very large number of persons (10,000), that too, after several years. In those circumstances, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has arrived at a conclusion that the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has rightly declined back wages except with effect from the date of actually working on the higher post. The facts are again distinguishable. In the present case, the Respondent No.1 was not granted promotion. She was entitled for consideration against the solitary post in the year 2014. However, the Respondents violating the Recruitment Rules have promoted a person who was not in feeder cadre depriving the Writ Petitioner of a valuable right of consideration for higher post. Meaning thereby, denying her to work on a higher post and, therefore, the judgment relied upon is again distinguishable on facts.

42. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has again placed a reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of State of Haryana Vs. O. P. Gupta & Ors., (1996) 7 SCC 533. The aforesaid case again relates to seniority dispute and consequential promotion. In the present case, there is no such seniority dispute involved, rather the present case relates to violation of statutory Recruitment Rules by the Appellant Organization depriving the Respondent No.1 of her legitimate right of consideration for promotion by promoting a person who was not in feeder cadre, and, therefore, the aforesaid judgment does not help the Appellant in any manner.

43. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance upon another judgment delivered in the case of A. K. Soumini Vs. State Bank of Travancore & Anr., (2003) 7 SCC 238. This Court has carefully gone Digitaaly through the aforesaid judgment and the fact of the case reveal that the relief was granted to the Appellant therein by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court keeping in view the delay due to pendency of proceedings before it. It was more in the nature of a gesture of gratis and not by way of any right. In those circumstances, the claim for payment of arrears was held to be far-fetched and without any basis in law, and, therefore, the judgment again does not help the Appellant herein in any manner.

44. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has also placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Tarsem Lal & Ors., (2006) 10 SCC 145. In the aforesaid case, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was dealing with Para 288 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual which deals with erroneous promotion. In the present case, there is no such issue involved. On the contrary, the present case is a case where an SC category Employee was deprived of her valuable right of promotion by granting benefit of promotion to a person who was not in feeder cadre against the solitary promotion post available in the Organization de-hors the Recruitment Rules.

45. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Learned Single Judge was justified in granting backwages and granting consequential benefits to the Writ Petitioner (Respondent No.1 herein).

46. In the case of Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109: 1993 SCC (L&S) 387. The Supreme Court has held that: “24. It was further contended on their behalf that the normal rule is “no work no pay”. Hence a person cannot be allowed to Digitaaly draw the benefits of a post the duties of which he has not discharged. To allow him to do so is against the elementary rule that a person is to be paid only for the work he has done and not for the work he has not done. As against this, it was pointed out on behalf of the concerned employees, that on many occasions even frivolous proceedings are instituted at the instance of interested persons, sometimes with a specific object of denying the promotion due, and the employee concerned is made to suffer both mental agony and privations which are multiplied when he is also placed under suspension, When, therefore, at the end of such sufferings, he comes out with a clean bill, he has to be restored to all the benefits from which he was kept away unjustly.

25. We are not much impressed by the contentions advanced on behalf of the authorities. The normal rule of “no work no pay” is not applicable to cases such as the present one where the employee although he is willing to work is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his. This is not a case where the employee remains away from work for his own reasons, although the work is offered to him. It is for this reason that F.R. 17(1) will also be inapplicable to such cases.” (Emphasis supplied)

47. In light of the aforesaid judgment, as the Respondent No.1 was illegally denied her right of promotion by the authorities, for no fault of her, she is certainly entitled for back wages as has been held by the learned Single Judge.

48. The Respondents have certainly promoted the Petitioner by an order dated 03.09.2019. However, she has not been granted consequential benefits. The order dated 03.09.2019 is reproduced as under: “Inter-University Accelerator Centre Digitaaly New Delhi Ref: IUAC/II.314/5696 September 3, 2019 Office Order In compliance of order dated 29th May, 2019 passed by Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) 4364/2016 read with order dated 3rd July, 2019 passed by Division Bench in LPA NO. 424/2019 and pursuant to the recommendations of review DPC, Smt. Manisha Rani is promoted as Personal Assistant in the PB-II Rs. 9300-34800 with GP 4200/- w.e.f 22nd January, 2014. The pay fixation on promotion will be on notional basis. The consequential benefits which has presently been stayed by the Division Bench of Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 3rd July, 2019 will be governed by the final outcome of the said appeal. This supersedes earlier order nos. IUAC/II.314/870 dated 04.07.19 granting MACP from 22.01.19 and no. IUAC/II.314/871 dated 04.07.19 granting promotion to the post of Personal Assistant. This issue with the approval of the Competent Authority. -sd- (Administrative Officer) Personnel”

49. The Respondent No.1 has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of Renu and Ors. Vs. District and Session Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and Ors., (2014) 14 SCC 50, and Paragraph Nos. 11, 12 and 13 of the judgment read as under: Digitaaly

13. A similar view has been reiterated by the Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1: 2006 SCC (L&S) 753: AIR 2006 SC 1806], observing that any appointment made in violation of the statutory rules as also in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Digitaaly Constitution would be a nullity. “Adherence to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is a must in the process of public employment.” The Court further rejected the prayer that ad hoc appointees working for long be considered for regularisation as such a course only encourages the State to flout its own rules and would confer undue benefits on some at the cost of many waiting to compete.”

50. In light of the aforesaid judgment, it can be safely gathered that in the case of public employment, appointments made in violation of statutory rules are in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and are in nullity.

51. The order passed by this Court and the record establishes that promotion of Respondent No.3 Mr. R. N. Dhyani was a nullity as he was not in a feeder cadre and, therefore, as the Respondent No.1 Writ Petitioner was in the feeder cadre, and was deprived of her valuable right of consideration against the solitary post, the learned Single Judge was justified in granting the consequential benefits.

52. In the case of J.N. Shrivastava v. Union of India, AIR 1999 SC 1571, the Supreme court has held that when the employee has always been ready and willing to work but the employer prevents him from doing his work, then the principle of „no work no pay‟ would not be applicable.

53. In the present case, Respondent no. 1 was denied the promotion for no fault of her own, and therefore, the appellant‟s contention that on the ground of “no work no pay” the respondent No.1 is not entitled to the consequential Digitaaly relief is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of K.V. Jankiraman (supra).

54. In the considered opinion of this court the Learned Single Judge has extensively dealt with the issues in his judgment. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this Letters Patent Appeal and the same is dismissed and direct the promotion of Respondent no 1 to the post of Personal Assistant with all consequential benefits w.e.f. 22.01.2014. (SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)

CHIEF JUSTICE (SANJEEV NARULA)