The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C)(OAS) No.46 of 2016 In the matter of an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal’s Act, 1985. ……………… Bishnu Prasad Mishra …. Petitioner -versus- Water Resources Department & Ors. …. Opposite Parties For Petitioners : Mr. D.K. Panda, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. M.K. Balabantaray Addl. Govt. Advocate PRESENT: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 25.06.2024 and Date of Judgment: 16.08.2024 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia challenging order dtd.16.06.2014 so issued by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure- 16. Vide the said order claim of the Petitioner to get the financial benefit for his promotion to the rank of Asst. Executive Engineer (Civil), Executive Engineer (Civil) and Superintending Engineer Level- // 2 // II (Civil), Superintending Engineer Level-I (Civil) w.e.f.06.11.2001, 28.12.2002, 26.08.2004 and 04.03.2006 was rejected on the ground that Petitioner since has not discharged the duty in the promotional post, applying the principle of No Work No Pay, Petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit. 2. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner entered into service as an Asst. Engineer on ad hoc basis on 06.11.1981 and his name was concurred by Opp. Parties vide order dt.18.05.1984. While so continuing under M.I. Division, Sambalpur, he was implicated in Sambalpur Vigilance P.S. Case No. 13 dtd.16.06.1995/T.R. Case No. 40/1998 pending, before the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Sambalpur. 3. It is contended that in the gradation list of Asst. Engineer so published while Petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 19, one Durga Prasad Pattnaik was placed at Sl. No. 20. Similarly, Shri Narayan Majhi, Sri Kamalakanta Kar, Sri Susanta Kumar Panda Shri Ananta Kumar Parmar and Sri Suresh Chandra Patra were placed at Sl. Nos. 22 to 25 respectively. 3.1. It is contended that even though Petitioner was placed above the aforesaid Durga Prasad Pattnaik and others in the gradation list of Asst. Page 2 of 24 // 3 // Engineer, but the aforesaid juniors when were promoted to the rank of Asst. Executive Engineer by the Govt. in the Department of Water Resources vide Notification No. 42452 dtd.06.11.2001, Petitioner being aggrieved made a representation on 27.11.2001. As no action was taken in considering his grievances, Petitioner made another representation on 08.10.2004 and thereafter approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 3011(C) of 2005. 3.2. The aforesaid Original Application in O.A. No. 3011(C) of 2005
Decision
was disposed of vide order dtd.05.02.2007 with a direction on the Opp. Party No. 1 to consider the claim of the Petitioner and dispose of the same within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of the order. But claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of promotion to the rank of Asst. Executive Engineer from the date his juniors got the said benefit vide office order dtd.06.11.2001 was rejected vide order dtd.12.06.2009 under Annexure-7 on the ground that since a Vigilance Proceeding is pending against the Petitioner vide T.R. No. 40/1998 in the file of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Sambalpur, opening of sealed cover and promotion to the Petitioner, will be against public interest and against G.A. Department circular. Page 3 of 24 // 4 // 3.3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that vide Judgment dtd.30.06.2011 under Annexure-8, when Petitioner was acquitted along with some other co-accused persons, Petitioner made a detailed representation before Opp. Party No. 1 on 21.07.2011 under Annexure- 9 inter alia claiming promotion to the rank of Asst. Executive Engineer w.e.f.06.11.2001, to the post of Executive Engineer w.e.f.28.12.2002, Superintending Engineer Level-II w.e.f.26.08.2004 and Superintending Engineer Level-I w.e.f.04.03.2006, on the ground that all his juniors have got the said benefit from the aforesaid dates. 3.4. As the claim of the Petitioner so made under Annexure-9 was neither considered nor disposed of, Petitioner approached the Tribunal once again by filing O.A. No. 85 of 2012. The Tribunal vide order dtd.29.03.2012 under Annexure-10 while disposing the writ petition issued the following direction:- “6. It is explicit from Annexure-4 that his case for promotion was kept in a sealed cover due to pendency of the aforesaid criminal case. That has since been disposed of and the applicant (accused) has been acquitted of the charges leveled against him. In the circumstances, there is no reason not to open the sealed cover to find out the decision of the departmental promotion committee about the suitability of the applicant for promotion to the higher post. 7. In the circumstances, the respondents are directed to open the sealed cover, wherein the case of the applicant has been kept sealed and to consider grant of promotion of the applicant in Page 4 of 24 // 5 // accordance with the finding of the D.P.C., with all service benefits.” 3.5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that even though the Tribunal vide its order under Annexure-10 held the Petitioner entitled to get all service benefits on his getting the benefit of promotion, but vide order dtd.19.07.2012 so issued by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-11, Petitioner was promoted to the rank of Asst. Executive Engineer (Civil) w.e.f.06.11.2001 on notional basis. 3.6. It is contended that as during the relevant time juniors to the Petitioner had got the benefit of promotion to the rank of Executive Engineer w.e.f.28.12.2002, Superintending Engineer Level-II w.e.f.26.08.2004 and Superintending Engineer Level-I w.e.f.04.03.2006, Petitioner after receipt of the order under Annexure- 11, made a further representation on 27.08.2012 under Annexure-12 inter alia with a prayer to extend him the benefit of promotion to the rank of Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer Level-II & Level- I w.e.f.28.12.2002, 26.08.2004 and 04.03.2006 respectively. 3.7. It is contended that in consideration of the prayer made in Annexure-12, Opp. Party No. 1 vide order dtd.22.04.2013 under Annexure-13 extended the benefit of promotion to the rank of Executive Engineer (Civil) w.e.f.28.12.2002, to the rank of Page 5 of 24 // 6 // Superintending Engineer Level-II w.e.f.26.08.2004 and Level-I w.e.f.04.03.2006. 3.8. It is however contended that even though Petitioner was extended with the benefit of promotion from the date his juniors have got the said benefit to the rank of Asst. Executive Engineer, Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer Level-II & Level-I vide orders issued under Annexure-11 and 13, but on notional basis only. 3.9. It is contended that since the Tribunal while disposing O.A. No. 85 of 2012, held the Petitioner entitled to get all service benefits, on the face of such order which was never assailed, while extending the benefit of promotion to the rank of Asst. Executive Engineer vide order dtd.19.07.2012 under Annexure-11 and to the rank of Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer Level-II & Level- I vide order under Annexure-13, the same could not have been extended on notional basis. Petitioner in the alternate should have extended with all service benefit. 3.10. In support of his aforesaid submission, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR (2007) SC 3100 (Commissioner, Karnatak Housing Board Vs. C. Muddaiah). Page 6 of 24 // 7 // 3.11. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 31 of the said Judgment has held as follows:- “31. We are of the considered opinion that once a direction is issued by a Court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without any reservation. If an order competent passed by a Court of Law is not complied with or is ignored, there will be an end of Rule of Law. If a party against whom such order is made has grievance, the only remedy available to him is to challenge the order by taking appropriate proceedings known to law. But it cannot be made ineffective by not complying with the directions on a specious plea that no such directions could have been issued by the Court. In our judgment, upholding of such argument would result in chaos and confusion and would seriously affect and impair administration of justice. The argument of the Board, therefore, has no force and must be rejected.” 3.12. It is contended that on the face of the order passed by the Tribunal on 29.02.2012 in O.A. No. 85 of 2012 under Annexure-10 and the decision in the case of C. Muddaiah, while extending the benefit of promotion to the rank of Asst. Executive Engineer, Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer Level-II and Level-I vide order dtd.19.07.2012 under Annexure-11 and 22.04.2013 under Annexure-13, Petitioner should have been allowed with all service benefits, instead of extending the benefit on notional basis. Page 7 of 24 // 8 // 3.13. It is contended that Petitioner claiming extension of the service benefits in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 85 of 2012, once again made a detailed representation before Opp. Party No. 1 on 20.07.2013 under Annexure-14. As the same was not considered, Petitioner made a further representation on 27.05.2014 under Annexure-15. But the fact remains that prior to his acquittal in the vigilance proceeding vide Judgment dtd.30.06.2011 under Annexure-8, Petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2011. 3.14. It is contended that Opp. Party No. 1 without proper appreciation of the claim raised by the Petitioner in his representation under Annexure-14 & 15 and the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 85 of 2012 under Annexure-10, rejected the claim of the Petitioner to get the service benefits vide the impugned order dtd.16.06.2014 under Annexure-16. Applying the principle of No Work No Pay and on the ground that Petitioner has not discharged his duty in the promotional post in the rank of Asst. Executive Engineer, Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer Level-II and Level-I w.e.f.06.11.2001, 28.12.2002, 26.08.2004 and 04.03.2006. Opp. Party No. 1 relying on an order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5128 of 2001 (Union of India Vs. B.M. Jha) held accordingly. Page 8 of 24 // 9 // 3.15. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since because of the pendency of the vigilance proceeding in T.R. Case No. 40 of 1998, Petitioner was not extended with the benefit of promotion to the rank of Asst. Executive Engineer w.e.f.06.11.2001 and to the rank of Executive Engineer w.e.f.28.12.2002, Superintending Engineer Level-II w.e.f.26.08.2004 and Level-I w.e.f.04.03.2006. Prayer of the Petitioner to get the said benefit in terms of order dtd.05.02.2007 in O.A. No. 3011(C) of 2006 under Annexure-6, was rejected on the ground that during pendency of the vigilance proceeding, opening of the sealed cover and promotion to the delinquent officer will be against public interest and against the G.A. Department circular. 3.16. But it is contended that since the Petitioner was acquitted vide Judgment dtd.30.06.2011 under Annexure-8, in view of the stipulation contained in office memorandum dtd.18.02.1994 of the G.A. Department, Petitioner became entitled to get the arrear salary and allowances. Para 6 of office Memorandum dtd.18.02.1994 reads as follows:- “6. On the conclusion of the disciplinary case/criminal prosecution, the sealed cover or covers shall be opened. In case the officer is completely exonerated, the due date of his promotion will be determined with reference to the findings of the Screening committee kept in the sealed cover/covers and Page 9 of 24 // 10 // with reference to the date of promotion of his next junior on the basis of such findings. The Government servant may be promoted, if necessary, by reverting the junior-most officiating person. He be promoted notionally with reference may to the date of promotion of his junior. In cases of complete exoneration, the officer will also be paid arrears of salaries and allowances. In other cases, the question of arrears will be decided by the State Government by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the disciplinary/criminal proceedings, but where the Government denies arrears of salary or a part of it, the reasons for doing so shall be recorded.” 3.17. It is contended that since in the vigilance proceeding Petitioner was completely exonerated with passing of the order of acquittal vide Judgment dt.30.06.2011, in view of the provisions contained under Para 6 of office memorandum dtd.18.02.1994, Petitioner became eligible and entitled to get all the arrear of salary and allowances. With regard to the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of salary and allowances on the ground of complete exoneration, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of (i) Union of India & Ors. Vs. K.V. Jankiraman & Ors. reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109, (ii) Civil Appeal No. 3041 of 2010 (State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. B.B.S. Rathore) and a decision of this Court in the case of Amarendra Kumar Dash Vs. Orissa Forest Development Corporation Page 10 of 24 // 11 // Limited & Ors. reported in Vol. 81 (1996) CLT 393 and another order passed in the case of Brahmananda Sahoo Vs. State of Odisha & Ors., W.P.C.(OAC) No. 1970 of 2018 disposed of on 04.01.2023. 3.18. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.V. Jankiraman in Para 24, 25 & 26 of the said Judgment has held as follows:- “24. It was further contended on their behalf that the normal rule is “no work no pay”. Hence a person cannot be allowed to 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. 26. We are, therefore, broadly in agreement with the finding of the Tribunal that when an employee is completely exonerated meaning thereby that he is not found blameworthy in the least Page 11 of 24 // 12 // and is not visited with the penalty even of censure, he has to be given the benefit of the salary of the higher post along with the other benefits from the date on which he would have normally been promoted but for the disciplinary/criminal proceedings. However, there may be cases where the proceedings, whether disciplinary or criminal, are, for example, delayed at the instance of the employee or the clearance in the disciplinary proceedings or acquittal in the criminal proceedings is with benefit of doubt or on account of non-availability of evidence due to the acts attributable to the employee etc. In such circumstances, the concerned authorities must be vested with the power to decide whether the employee at all deserves any salary for the intervening period and if he does, the extent to which he deserves it. Life being complex, it is not possible to anticipate and enumerate exhaustively all the circumstances under which such consideration may become necessary. To ignore, however, such circumstances when they exist and lay down an inflexible rule that in every case when an employee is exonerated in disciplinary/criminal proceedings he should be entitled to all salary for the intervening period is to undermine discipline in the administration and jeopardise public interests. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the Tribunal that to deny the salary to an employee would in all circumstances be illegal. While, therefore, we do not approve of the said last sentence in the first sub-paragraph after clause (iii) of paragraph 3 of the said Memorandum, viz., “but no arrears of pay shall be payable to him for the period of notional promotion preceding the date of actual promotion”, we direct that in place of the said sentence the following sentence be read in the Memorandum: “However, whether the officer concerned will be entitled to any arrears of pay for the period of notional promotion preceding the date of actual promotion, and if so to what extent, will be decided by the concerned authority by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the disciplinary proceeding/criminal prosecution. Where the authority denies arrears of salary or part of it, it will record its reasons for doing so.”” Page 12 of 24 // 13 // 3.19. Similarly, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B.B.S. Rathore in Para 9 of the Judgment has held as follows:- “The following principles emerge from the aforesaid judgments: (i) When a retrospective promotion is given to an incumbent, normally he is entitled to all benefits flowing therefrom. (ii) In case of a notional promotion with retrospective effect, in normal course the incumbent is not automatically entitled to arrears of salary as he/she has not worked in the promotional post. (iii)The principle of "no work, no pay" is not applicable in case of retrospective promotion where the incumbent was willing to work but was denied the opportunity to work for no fault of him. For example, if the employee is kept under suspension during departmental enquiry and sealed cover procedure is adopted. In such cases if notional promotion is granted after completion of the proceeding the employee is entitled to the arrears of salary.” 3.20. This Court in the case Amarendra Kumar Dash in Para 10 has held as follows:- “We may profitably refer to the case of Jankiraman (supra) in this regard. A contention was advanced in that case that a person who has not worked in the promotional post is not entitled to the financial benefits as the normal rule of "no work, no pay" is applicable. Repelling the said contention, their Lordships held as follows:- Page 13 of 24 // 14 // "It was further contended on their behalf that the normal rule is 'no work, no pay'. Hence a person cannot be allowed to 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. 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..." The aforesaid decisions was also relied upon in the case of Syed Nassem Zahir and others (supra) wherein their Lordships as follows: "...... In case he is completely exonerated, the 'sealed cover' shall be opened and if the recommendation is in his favour, he shall be notionally promoted with effect from the date when a person junior to him was promoted to the Page 14 of 24 // 15 // post of Chief Engineer. In that event, he shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including back wages......” 3.21. Similarly, this Court in Para 6.3 of the order dtd.04.01.2023 has held as follows:- “6.3. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid analysis made by this Court, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of promotion from 28.02.2018 with all service and financial benefit. While holding so, this Court directs Opposite Party No.1 to calculate the differential entitlements of the petitioner from 28.02.2018 to 30.11.2019 and release the same in favour of the petitioner. Opposite Party No.1 is also further directed to recalculate the pensionary benefits of the petitioner and also take steps for release of the differential pension and pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner. This Court directs Opposite Party no.1 to complete the entire exercise in all respect within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.” 3.22. Placing reliance on the decisions on as cited supra and the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 85 of 2012 under Annexure-10 as well as the stipulation in Para 6 of Office Memorandum dt.18.02.1994, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner was exonerated from the charges in the vigilance proceeding and he was extended with the benefit of promotion to different ranks vide orders issued under Annexure-11 & 13, Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get all service benefits and rejection of the same by holding the Petitioner Page 15 of 24 // 16 // entitled to the same on notional basis applying the principle of No Work No Pay vide the impugned order dtd.16.06.2014 under Annexure-16 is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. 4. Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by the Opp. Parties. It is contended that after receipt of the order dtd.05.02.2007 so passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 3011(C) of 2005 under Annexure-6, claim of the Petitioner was considered and rejected vide order dtd.12.06.2009 under Annexure-7 inter alia on the ground that, during pendency of the vigilance proceeding, in view of the circular issued by the G.A. Department, opening of sealed cover and promotion of the Petitioner will be against public interest. 4.1. However, when the Petitioner was acquitted in the vigilance proceeding vide Judgment dtd.30.06.2011 under Annexure-8 and the Tribunal vide order dtd.29.02.2012 in O.A. No. 85 of 2012 under Annexure-10 directed the Opp. Parties to open the sealed cover and to consider the grant of promotion to the Petitioner in accordance with the finding of the DPC with all service benefits, the matter was referred to Page 16 of 24 // 17 // the G.A. Department seeking their view. View expressed by the Department so reflected in the counter reads as follows:- “The said Deptt. opined that since the vigilance case has been disposed of and the applicant has been acquitted of the charges and set at liberty by court order, the sealed cover in respect of the applicant is to be opened and if he is found suitable for promotion then promotion is to be given from the date of which his next junior was given promotion and fixed his inter- se-seniority accordingly.” 4.2. It is contended that keeping in view the opinion of G.A. Department and the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 85 of 2012, Petitioner though was extended with the benefit of promotion to the rank of Asst. Executive Engineer w.e.f.06.11.2001, to the rank of Executive Engineer w.e.f.28.12.2002, to the rank of Superintending Engineer Level-II w.e.f.26.08.2004 and Level-I w.e.f.04.03.2006 vide order issued on 19.07.2012 under Annexure-11 and order dtd.22.04.2013 under Annexure-13, but applying the principle of No Work No Pay and the fact that the Petitioner never discharged the duty in the promotional post and by the time he was extended with the benefit of promotion, he had already retired from his services on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2011, such benefit of promotion was extended on notional basis. Page 17 of 24 // 18 // 4.3. In support of his aforesaid submission learned Addl. Govt. Advocate relied on an order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. B.M. Jha (2007) 11 SCC 632. View expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 5 of the said order reads as follows:- “5. 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 State of Haryana v. O.P. Gupta [(1996) 7 SCC 533 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 633 : (1996) 33 ATC 324] and followed in A.K. Soumini v. State Bank of Travancore [(2003) 7 SCC 238 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 1041 : 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 State of A.P. v. K.V.L. Narasimha Rao [(1999) 4 SCC 181 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 841 : JT (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 Page 18 of 24 // 19 // 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, Principal Bench.” 4.4. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate placing reliance on the provisions contained under Rule 56 of the Odisha Service Code and Finance Department Office Memorandum dtd.18.02.1988 contended that since Petitioner never discharged his duty in the promotional post applying the principle of No Work No Pay and the fact that the Petitioner never assume the duty in the promotional post, he was extended with the benefit vide order under Annexure-11 & 13 on notional basis. It is accordingly contended that claim of the Petitioner has been rightly rejected and it requires no interference. 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that in the gradation list of Asst. Executive Engineer published under Annexure-2 Petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 19 and one Durga Prasa Pattnaik at Sl. No. 20. Because of the pendency of the vigilance proceeding in T.R. Case No. 40 of 1998 before the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Sambalpur, Petitioner was not extended with the benefit of promotion to the rank of Asst. Executive Engineer while such benefit was extended in favour of Page 19 of 24 // 20 // Sri Durga Prasad Pattnaik w.e.f.06.11.2001. Claim of the Petitioner to get the said benefit in terms of order dtd.05.02.2007 of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 3011(C) of 2005 was rejected vide order dtd.12.06.2009 under Annexure-7 on the ground that because of the pendency of the vigilance proceeding, opening of sealed cover and promotion to the Petitioner will be against public interest. By the time claim of the Petitioner was so rejected, his juniors have already got the benefit of promotion to the rank of Executive Engineer w.e.f.28.12.2002, Superintending Engineer Level-II w.e.f.26.08.2004 and Level-I w.e.f.04.03.2006. 5.1. Since claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of promotion was rejected only on the ground that the vigilance proceeding is pending against him, Petitioner on being acquitted in the said vigilance proceeding vide Judgment dtd.30.06.2011 under Annexure-8, moved Opp. Party No. 1 to get the benefit of promotion to the rank of Asst. Executive Engineer w.e.f.06.11.2001, Executive Engineer w.e.f.28.12.2002, Superintending Engineer Level-II w.e.f.26.08.2004 and Level-I w.e.f.04.03.2006 vide Annexure-9. 5.2. As the claim of the Petitioner after his acquittal in the vigilance proceeding so made in Annexure-9 was not considered, Petitioner Page 20 of 24 // 21 // approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 85 of 2012. The Tribunal vide office order dtd.29.02.2012 under Annexure-10 while directing the Opp. Parties to open the sealed cover and to consider the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of promotion, held that Petitioner will be entitled to get all service benefits. In terms of the said order passed by the Tribunal Petitioner was promoted to the rank of Asst. Executive Engineer (Civil) w.e.f.06.11.2001 vide Notification dtd.19.07.2012 under Annexure-11, but on notional basis. 5.3. Petitioner thereafter claiming the benefit of promotion to the rank of Executive Engineer w.e.f.28.12.2002, to the rank of Superintending Engineer Level-II w.e.f.26.08.2004 and Level-I w.e.f.04.03.2006 made further representation under Annexure-12. Vide Notification dtd.22.04.2013 under Annexure-13, Petitioner was extended with the benefit of such promotion w.e.f.28.12.2002, 26.08.2004 and w.e.f.04.03.2006, but such benefit was extended on notional basis. 5.4. Petitioner challenging such extension of benefit on notional basis to different ranks on the face of the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-10, made further representation under Annexure-14 & 15 inter alia with the prayer to extend him with the service benefits as directed by the Tribunal in its order under Annexure-10. But the said Page 21 of 24 // 22 // claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.16.06.2014 under Annexure-16 placing reliance on the principle of No Work No pay and the decision in the case of B.M. Jha as cited (supra). 5.5. It is the view of this Court that the Tribunal while directing the Opp. Parties to open the sealed cover and to consider the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of promotion vide order under Annexure- 10, held the Petitioner entitled to get all service benefits. The said order of the Tribunal was never assailed by the Opp. Parties and in the alternate Petitioner vide Notification dtd.19.07.2012 under Annexure- 11 and Notification dtd.22.04.2013 under Annexure-13 was extended with the benefit of promotion to different rank w.e.f.06.11.2001, 28.12.2002, 26.08.2004 and 04.03.2006. 5.6. Since the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-10 was never assailed by the State and it was implemented vide Notification issued under Annexure-11 & 13, placing reliance on the said direction of the Tribunal and the decision in the case of C. Muddaiah, it is the view of this Court that the Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the service benefits as due and admissible. Not only that placing reliance on the decision in the case of K.V. Jankiraman so followed in the case Page 22 of 24 // 23 // of B.B.S. Rathore by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the decision of this Court in the case of Amarendra Kumar Das and W.P.C.(OAC) No. 1970 of 2018 and the stipulation contained in Para 6 of Office Memorandum dt.18.02.1994, it is the view of this Court that since the Petitioner was exonerated from all the charges and was accordingly acquitted vide Judgment under Annexure-8, in view of such exoneration and the order passed under Annexure-10 and the decision in the case of C. Muddaiah, Petitioner is entitled to get all service benefits as due and admissible and principle of No Work No Pay cannot be applied to the claim of the Petitioner. 5.7. On the face of the view expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.V. Jankiraman and B.B.S. Rathore as well as Syed Naseem Zahir (1974) (SC) 460, this Court is unable to accept the view relied on by the learned State Counsel in the case of B.M. Jha as cited (supra). 5.8. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned order dtd.16.06.2014 so issued by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-16. While quashing the same, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to extend the service benefits as due and admissible by making a detailed Page 23 of 24 // 24 // calculation and release the same by completing all the exercise within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. 6. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 16th of August, 2024/Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 20-Aug-2024 18:02:13 Page 24 of 24