The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that an employee who was wrongly denied promotion earlier cannot be deprived of salary arrears after being granted retrospective promotion. The court held that the principle of “no work no pay” cannot be applied when the delay in promotion occurred due to administrative lapse and not the fault of the employee.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil passed the order while allowing a writ petition filed by Chander Bhan against the State of Haryana and another authority.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Chander Bhan, initially joined the department as a daily wage P.R. Chowkidar in April 1987 in Narwana, District Jind. His services were later regularised in April 1993. Over time, he was promoted to the post of Clerk in April 2011 and later as Sub-Inspector in June 2014.
Read also:- Gym Review Row Reaches Court: Orissa High Court Refuses Relief in Police Harassment Allegations Case
However, Bhan claimed that two officials junior to him were promoted earlier to the posts of Sub-Inspector and Inspector. One of them, Satbir Singh, was promoted as Sub-Inspector in April 2012 and later as Inspector in July 2016.
In November 2017, the petitioner submitted a representation seeking promotion from the same dates as his juniors along with all financial benefits. During the pendency of the case, the department granted him deemed retrospective promotions as Clerk from September 2008, as Sub-Inspector from April 2012, and as Inspector from June 2016.
However, the orders denied arrears of salary for the retrospective period on the ground that he had not actually worked on those posts.
Read also:- MP High Court Refuses Bail in Gwalior Case Where Constable Was Dragged on Car Bonnet During NSG Drill
Counsel for the petitioner argued that once the department itself admitted that he was entitled to promotion from earlier dates, denying financial benefits was arbitrary and discriminatory.
It was submitted that the petitioner had always been eligible and ready to perform duties on the higher posts, but was prevented from doing so due to administrative error. Therefore, the doctrine of “no work no pay” could not be invoked against him.
On the other hand, the State argued that retrospective promotions were granted only to correct the petitioner’s seniority position and did not automatically entitle him to arrears of pay, since he had not actually worked on the promotional posts.
Read also:- Karnataka High Court Allows Minor to Use Mother’s Surname in Birth Certificate, Orders Fresh Record
The High Court noted that the department’s decision to grant retrospective promotions itself acknowledged that the petitioner had been wrongly denied promotion earlier.
“The delay in promotion is not attributable to any fault… on the part of the petitioner. Rather, it resulted from administrative oversight,” the court observed.
The court also relied on several Supreme Court rulings clarifying that the principle of “no work no pay” is not absolute and cannot be applied where an employee is willing to work but is prevented by the employer.
Read also:- Supreme Court Withdraws 3 Criminal Revisions from Allahabad HC Over Delay in 1994 Murder Case Trial
Justice Moudgil emphasized that denying financial benefits after acknowledging the employee’s rightful promotion would effectively allow the State to benefit from its own mistake.
“The State, being a model employer, is expected to act fairly,” the bench noted, adding that retrospective promotion should restore the employee to the financial position he would have held if the error had not occurred.
The High Court quashed the clauses in the government orders dated September 4, 2020, and November 12, 2020, which denied salary arrears to the petitioner.
The court directed the authorities to grant Chander Bhan all consequential monetary benefits arising from his deemed promotions - including arrears of salary and refixation of pay - from the respective dates of promotion.
The State authorities were ordered to complete the entire exercise within three months from receipt of the certified copy of the order.
Case Title: Chander Bhan vs State of Haryana and Another
Case Number: CWP-2946-2019
Decision Date: 20 February 2026
Petitioner’s Counsel: Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate
Respondent’s Counsel: Dr. Malvika Singh, Deputy Advocate General (DAG), Haryana
