1 2025:CGHC:13003 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9170 of 2023 1 - R. B. Mangrulkar S/o Late B. R. Mangrulkar Aged About 66 Years R/o M I G - 11, Sector- 1, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Engineer- In - Chief Public Works Department, North Block, Sector- 19, Nirman Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department, North Block, Sector-19, Nirman Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 19/03/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a following reliefs:- 10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ to quash/set-aside the impugned communication/letter dated 19.06.2023 (P/1) and further be pleased to set aside the clause 9 of the AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.03.20 17:06:07 +0530 2 order dated 03.02.2023 (P/2) with respect to the petitioner. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate direction/writ directing the Respondent Authorities to release the arrears of pay for the post of Chief Engineer on which the petitioner had worked on the basis of the orders issued by the Competent Authority. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that initially the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department in the year 1985, thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer in the year 2003 and to the post of Superintending Engineer in the year 2007. According to the petitioner, in the year 2010, DPC was convened for the post of Chief Engineer, however, at that time, the case of the petitioner was not considered. In the meanwhile, he retired from the service on 30/06/2019 on attaining the age of superannuation. She submits that the similarly situated persons preferred writ petitions before this Court wherein this Court directed to conduct the review DPC of the DPC conducted in the year 2010. In compliance of the order of this Court, the respondent authorities conducted the 3 review DPC on 05/12/2022 on the basis of gradation list of Superintending Engineer as on 01/04/2010 and in the said meeting, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Chief Engineer. However, the authorities declined to give to pay benefit on the principle of “No Work No Pay”. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation and prayed for the benefit of pay scale w.e.f. year 2010, but the same has been rejected by the order impugned. In support of her contention, she placed reliance on the decision of High Court of Madhya Pradesh passed WP No.2178/2011 (Sayed Kazman Ahmed Zaidi Vs. The State of M.P. & Ors.). 3. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, would oppose the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. She submits that the petitioner has never substantially hold the post of Chief Engineer prior to his retirement. She placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Government of West Bengal & Ors Vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors1 and Union of India Vs. B.M. Jha2. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents. 5. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner retired from service in the year 2019 on attaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter, pursuant to the order of this Court in WPS 1 2024 SCC Online SC 3512 2 2007 11 SCC 632 4 Nos.5253/2020 and 4919/2021, the respondent authorities conducted the review DPC on 05/12/2022 for reviewing the DPC conducted in the year 2010 and in the said DPC, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Chief Engineer on Notional Basis and in respect of pay scale, it has been held that the same has not applicable to the petitioner on the principle of “No Work No Pay”. 6. In the instant case, it is evident that the petitioner retired in the year 2019 and he has given the benefit of notional promotion to the post of Chief Engineer in the year 2022. It is well settled principles that promotion becomes effective from the date it is granted, rather than from the date of vacancy arises or the post is created. 7. It is also trite law 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. (See: B.M. Jha, [supra]). 8. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep/ Gowri