Cross appeals against orders granting a retired NTPC employee, selected by DPC in February 1984 for promotion as Assistant Engineer but never promoted, one-third monetary emoluments for three years before filing his writ petition until retirement. The Division Bench upheld both orders and dismissed both appeals.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
% Judgment reserved on : 22.04.2026 Judgment delivered on : 03.07.2026 Judgment uploaded on : As per Digital Signature~ + LPA 65/2014 NTPC LTD .....Appellant versus M P TIWARI AND ORS .....Respondents + LPA 759/2014 MP TIWARI .....Appellant versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the NTPC : Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate. For M P Tiwari : Ms. Richa Kapoor, Mr. Kunal Anand and Ms. Aditi Rathore, Advocates For the UOI : Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocates for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:0 3.07.2026 11:13:37
LPA 65 and 759 of 2014 Page 1 of 12
Tiwari has challenged the order dated 22.08.2014 in LPA 759/2014 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed his application for modification of order dated 06.11.2013.
“10. I may also note that there is no delay and laches in filing this petition because once the recommendations of DPC became final, and documents were issued in the office of respondent no.3 itself to this effect, and filed at running pages 286-287 showing that petitioner was in fact promoted as an Assistant Engineer w.e.f 1.7.1983, I would not like to hold the petition as barred by delay and laches unless there was a specific refusal issued to the petitioner denying the benefits of the post of Assistant Engineer, and only when cause of action would have accrued to the petitioner to approach the Court. In the absence of any refusal addressed to the petitioner, that he would not be promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in spite of his being put on the merit list panel as per the DPC of February, 1984, there was no need of the petitioner to approach the Court, albeit the petitioner will only be entitled to monetary emoluments for the promoted post for a period not more than three years prior to filing of the present writ petition.
11. The issue then arises is that what should be the relief which should be granted to the petitioner in this case. I have put to learned senior counsel for the petitioner, and who has accordingly taken instructions from the petitioner who is present in Court, that petitioner will be satisfied on his getting 1/3rd of the monetary emoluments as payable to an Assistant Engineer for 3 years prior to filing of the present writ petition. This entitlement of 1/3rd of the monetary emoluments as payable to the Assistant Engineer will of course be payable till the time the petitioner retired on
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:0 3.07.2026 11:13:37
LPA 65 and 759 of 2014 Page 2 of 12
30.6.2003. Therefore, applying the ratio of E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai’s case (supra) I hold that in the facts of the present case since petitioner without any fault of his has been denied the promotion post of Assistant Engineer, and at no point of time the petitioner refused to work at the post of Assistant Engineer, petitioner will be entitled to 1/3rd of monetary emoluments payable for the post of Assistant Engineer for the period of 3 years prior to the filing of the writ petition and till the date of his retirement on 30.6.2003. 12. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. Petitioner will be granted 1/3rd of the monetary emoluments payable to him as if he was an Assistant Engineer for the period of 3 years prior to the filing of the writ petition and which monetary emoluments will be payable till the retirement of the petitioner on 30.6.2003. The monetary package be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from today, and if not paid within three months, then petitioner thereafter will be entitled to interest at 7 ½ % per annum simple till the amount is paid. Parties are left to bear their own costs.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:0 3.07.2026 11:13:37
LPA 65 and 759 of 2014 Page 3 of 12
for the period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:0 3.07.2026 11:13:37
LPA 65 and 759 of 2014 Page 4 of 12
“7. In my opinion, the argument urged on behalf of respondent no.3 by contending that since there was no finality to the terms and conditions of the settlement in view of the letter dated 8.6.1984 of the respondent no.3 and the response thereto of the petitioner dated 18.6.1984, is an argument without merit inasmuch as the promotion of a person takes place not because of the exchange of correspondence but because of that person being successful in the selection process for the post in question. Petitioner, as stated above, was successful for being promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in terms of the selection process of February 1984 and therefore even if there was no settlement as is being contended by respondent no.3 that will not take away the finality of the recommendations of the DPC. Once the recommendations of the DPC are final then all the necessary consequences thereof flow including of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:0 3.07.2026 11:13:37
LPA 65 and 759 of 2014 Page 5 of 12
giving the petitioner promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, and which promotion post has been given to various other persons in terms of the selection process of February, 1984. At best, if the settlement was not final, however that settlement only will not be final, but the same cannot mean that the recommendations of DPC are also not final. Recommendations of DPC are necessarily final, and all that I may state is that it is not even the case of respondent no.3 as per the pleadings in this Court that the recommendations of DPC are not final, more so because various other persons have been promoted to the posts of Assistant Engineers in terms of the same recommendations of the DPC.
8. The issue then arises is that has the petitioner refused appointment to the promotion post of the Assistant Engineer as argued on behalf of respondent no. 3 by refusing to join the place of posting. Even this argument is without merit because there is admittedly no promotion order issued against the petitioner asking him to join at a particular place. If the petitioner in terms of the promotion order had refused to join at a particular place and that was the precondition to the grant of promotion, then the respondent no.3 could have argued before me that petitioner is estopped from claiming promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, but once no promotion order or any other order is issued against the petitioner asking him to join at a particular place then I fail to understand how failure of the petitioner to join at a particular place can be taken against the petitioner to deny him benefit of the selection which became final in terms of the DPC of February 1984.
9. So far as the issue of application of principle of 'no pay for no work is concerned', this has been clarified by the Supreme Court in the judgment of State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai (2007) 6 SCC 524 wherein Supreme Court has said that principle of 'no pay for no work' is not an absolute principle and it depends on facts of each case as to what reliefs can be granted to a person. It has been held that the rule of 'no pay for no work' is not an
Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:0 3.07.2026 11:13:37
LPA 65 and 759 of 2014 Page 6 of 12
inflexible rule and if a person because of fault of the management is denied the benefit of promotion post it cannot be held that the person will not be entitled to benefits of the particular post. The ratio of this judgment will squarely apply because there is no fault attributable to the 10. I may also note that there is no delay and laches in filing this petition because once the recommendations of DPC became final, and documents were issued in the office of respondent no.3 itself to this effect, and filed at running pages 286-287 showing that petitioner was in fact promoted as an Assistant Engineer w.e.f 1.7.1983, I would not like to hold the petition as barred by delay and laches unless there was a specific refusal issued to the petitioner denying the benefits of the post of Assistant Engineer, and only when cause of action would have accrued to the petitioner to approach the Court. In the absence of any refusal addressed to the petitioner, that he would not be promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in spite of his being put on the merit list panel as per the DPC of February, 1984, there was no need of the petitioner to approach the Court, albeit the petitioner will only be entitled to monetary emoluments for the promoted post for a period not more than three years prior to filing of the present writ petition.
11. The issue then arises is that what should be the relief which should be granted to the petitioner in this case. I have put to learned senior counsel for the petitioner, and who has accordingly taken instructions from the petitioner who is present in Court, that petitioner will be satisfied on his getting 1/3rd of the monetary emoluments as payable to an Assistant Engineer for 3 years prior to filing of the present writ petition. This entitlement of 1/3rd of the monetary emoluments as payable to the Assistant Engineer will of course be payable till the time the petitioner retired on 30.6.2003. Therefore, applying the ratio of E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai's case (supra) I hold that in the facts of the present case since petitioner without any fault of his has been denied the promotion post of Assistant Engineer, and at no point of time the petitioner refused to work at the post of
Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:0 3.07.2026 11:13:37
LPA 65 and 759 of 2014 Page 7 of 12
Assistant Engineer, petitioner will be entitled to 1/3rd of monetary emoluments payable for the post of Assistant Engineer for the period of 3 years prior to the filing of the writ petition and till the date of his retirement on 30.6.2003. 12. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. Petitioner will be granted 1/3rd of the monetary emoluments payable to him as if he was an Assistant Engineer for the period of 3 years prior to the filing of the writ petition and which monetary emoluments will be payable till the retirement of the petitioner on 30.6.2003. The monetary package be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from today, and if not paid within three months, then petitioner thereafter will be entitled to interest at 7½ % per annum simple till the amount is paid. Parties are left to bear their own costs.”
(emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:0 3.07.2026 11:13:37
LPA 65 and 759 of 2014 Page 8 of 12
“5. Consent of the petitioner to the period of the grant of the monetary emoluments is found in para 1of the judgment dated 06.11.2013, and which reads as under
"1. Irrespective of the cause of action pleaded in the writ petition and the prayer made in the same, before me today on behalf of the petitioner what is argued and relief claimed, is the entitlement of the petitioner to stand promoted as an Assistant Engineer with the respondent no.3/employer in terms of the selection process of February 1984. Since the petitioner has retired on 30.6.2003, a higher monetary emolument package taking the petitioner as having been promoted w.e.f 1.7.1983 as an Assistant Engineer is claimed. During the course of argument it is agreed that the monetary package to the petitioner be granted from a period of three years prior to filing of the present writ petition and till the petitioner retired i.e on
30.6.2003."
6. The petitioner claims that he never gave his consent to his counsel who had appeared and argued the case on 06.11.2013, and in support of this plea a reason given is
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:0 3.07.2026 11:13:37
LPA 65 and 759 of 2014 Page 9 of 12
that the petitioner is very old and slightly hard of hearing and so he did not 'understand' what his earlier counsels told him, however, I am constrained to observe that the averments now being made against the earlier counsels that no consent was taken is clearly and unfortunately a dishonest act on the part of the petitioner. In many cases, courts simply record the statement of the counsel without recording specific instructions of the litigant, but in this case, the specific instructions given by the petitioner who was present in person on 06.11.2013 were recorded while pursuing the judgment. Therefore, the endeavour of the petitioner, especially at a long time after 06.11.2013 to withdraw from a specific consent is absolutely unacceptable and smacks of malafides.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant very vehemently sought to canvass that actually the petitioner will end up paying a huge amount to the respondent even if the writ petition is allowed, but I have totally failed to understand this argument because if petitioner's writ petition is allowed and he has been granted promotion, surely he will get the higher pay of the promotion post and it is not petitioner's case and cannot be his case that the pay scale of the higher promotion post is lower than the lower post. If however there is an issue of satisfaction of the dues of the petitioner in terms of the judgment dated 06.11.2013, ie whether the petitioner has received monetary benefits granted to him by the judgment dated 06.11.2013, the same will be an issue to be looked into an appropriate proceeding, but definitely not by this review petition. 8. Dismissed.”
“a) allow the present application;
b) modify that part of the impugned judgment and order dated 06.11.2013 of this Hon'ble Court in W.P. (Civil) No. 6521 of 1998, whereby this Hon'ble Court did not extend
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:0 3.07.2026 11:13:37
LPA 65 and 759 of 2014 Page 10 of 12
any monetary benefit to the applicant petitioner beyond the post of Assistant Engineer and moreover granted the monetary benefits to the applicant-petitioner even to the post of Assistant Engineer only 1/3rd of the monetary benefits payable to him to the said post from 3 years prior to the filing of the said writ petition by the applicant-petitioner (i.e., the year 1995) till his superannuation on 30.6.2003 and substitute the relief that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the applicant-petitioner would be entitled of the monetary benefits payable to him from the post of Asstt. Controller upto the post of Deputy General Manager respectively in terms of promotional benefits accrued in his favour from time to time from 22.07.1977(i.e., the date when the Govt. of India had recognized the examination qualified by the petitioner in the Trade of Electrical Engineering as Diploma Course) till his superannuation.
c) direct The R nos. 2 and 3 to clear up applicantpetitioner’s entire monetary benefits payable to him from the post of Asstt. Engineer up to the post of Deputy General Manager accrued in his favour from time to time till his superannuation on 30.6.2003 in terms of promotional benefits accrued in his favour from time to time w.e.f. 01.07.1983;
d) award cost of the litigation in favour of the applicantpetitioner and against the R nos. 2 and 3
e) pass such other/further order/direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
(emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:0 3.07.2026 11:13:37
LPA 65 and 759 of 2014 Page 11 of 12
emoluments as payable to the post of Assistant Engineer only because he was recommended by DPC for promotion to said the post. There is no such recommendation to the posts upto Deputy General Manager by the DPC. Therefore, the impugned order dated 22.08.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge is justified in the facts.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
JULY 03, 2026 M
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:0 3.07.2026 11:13:37
LPA 65 and 759 of 2014 Page 12 of 12
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an employee recommended for promotion by a final DPC but never issued a promotion order was entitled to monetary emoluments of the promoted post despite delay.
Whether monetary benefits could be extended beyond the post of Assistant Engineer up to Deputy General Manager absent any DPC recommendation or prayer.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. E.K. Bhaskaran PillaiApplied
(2007) 6 SCC 524 · Who else cites this
NTPC Ltd
M.P. Tiwari
Union of India & Ors.
V. Kameswar Rao
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
