IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 1463 of 2003(B)
1. UNION OF INDIA,
... Petitioner
2. THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA,
3. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (FOOD),
Vs
1. C.A.BALAKRISHNAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.N.M.JAMES, ADDL.CGSC
For Respondent :SRI.MAT.PAI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
Dated :18/12/2006
O R D E R
K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR &
K.R.UDAYABHANU, JJ.
-------------------------
W.A.No.1463 of 2003 B
-------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of December, 2006.
JUDGMENT
Abdul Gafoor, J.
The issue raised in this writ appeal, at the instance of the
Union of India and the Food Corporation, is whether the writ
petitioner, the respondent in this appeal, is entitled to arrears of
pay consequent on his retrospective promotion with effect from
November, 1957. That entitlement of the respondent cannot be
disputed any more in the light of Ext.P1 judgment of the Karnataka
High Court, which stands confirmed by Ext.P2 judgment of the Apex
Court. The former judgment reads as under:
“We therefore, direct that the petitioner’s case for
promotion to the post of godown/dock
superintendent be considered as on 11.11.1957
when the third respondent was promoted and
according to the rules than it force (sick ‘then in
force’), and that if he is found fit for promotioness
(sick ‘promotion as’) on that etc. the promotion
already given to him to that position be dated back
to 11.11.1957 and he be granted all consequential
W.A.NO.1463/03
:: 2 ::
benefits. If he is not found fit for promotion as
on 11th November, 1957 he will not get any
relief.”
2. An appeal was carried to the Supreme Court by the
Government of India and the Food Corporation. Ext.P2 is the
judgment dismissing the said appeal. Necessarily, Ext.P1
direction stands confirmed. It has been specifically directed in
Ext.P1 that, “in case the writ petitioner/third respondent is
entitled to promotion with effect from 11.11.1957 he be
granted all consequential benefits”. Consequential benefits
arising out of the retrospective promotion are:
(a) The salary and allowances, and
(b) The seniority.
3. The dispute is with regard to the former alone. It
is true that there is a general principle of “no work – no pay”.
This would have been a principle to be canvassed before the
Karnataka High Court, which passed Ext.P1 judgment. After
Ext.P1 had been rendered inter parte, determining the rights of
the parties, one among the parties to the judgment cannot revert
W.A.NO.1463/03
:: 3 ::
back and say that the consequential benefits cannot be given.
Therefore, the learned single Judge was justified in allowing the
writ petition to that effect.
Appeal, therefore, fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
(K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR)
JUDGE
(K.R.UDAYABHANU)
JUDGE
sk/
K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR &
K.R.UDAYABHANU, JJ.
———————————————-
W.A.No.1463 of 2006 B
JUDGMENT
18th Decmber, 2006.
————————————————