Madhya Pradesh High Court
Atul Bajapei vs Mr. V. N. Ambade on 27 February, 2026
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP: 17552
CONC-4869-2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 27th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CONTEMPT PETITION CIVIL No. 4869 of 2024
ATUL BAJAPEI
Versus
MR. V. N. AMBADE
Appearance:
Shri Aditya Ahiwasi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri V.S. Choudhary - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
This contempt petition has been preferred by the petitioner alleging
wilful disobedience of the order dated 20/08/2024 passed by this Court in
Writ Petition No.11828/2005.
2. Relevant paragraph 6 of the aforesaid order is reproduced as under:-
“6. In view of the above discourse, the petition is
allowed. The impugned order dated 09.05.2005 is
hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to grant
promotion to the petitioner on the post of Assistant
Project Range Officer with effect from the date he
became entitled on securing first position in the
training of forest guard i.e. 15.09.2004 with all
consequential benefits of the said post within a period
of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this
order.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 28-02-2026
14:20:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP: 17552
CONC-4869-2024
2
3. Taking this Court to the compliance report dated 19/02/2025 as well
as subsequent compliance report dated 31/01/2026, learned counsel for the
respondent submits that as per the order passed by this Court on
20/08/2024, the petitioner has been promoted w.e.f.15/09/2004, by passing
the order on 27/01/2026. He further submits that since the petitioner was
already promoted w.e.f. 29/10/2015, therefore, he has already been given
the benefit of promotional post w.e.f.29/10/2015. He also submits that
since the petitioner did not work on the promotional post w.e.f.15/09/2004,
therefore, he is not entitled for back-wages in the light of order passed by
this Court regarding entitlement of the petitioner to all the consequential
benefits. As such, he submits that there being no wilful disobedience on
the part of the respondent and since the order passed by this Court, has
already been complied with fully, therefore, the contempt proceedings
deserve to be dropped. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for
the respondent placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Paluru
Ramkrishnaiah and Others vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1990 SC 166;
State of Haryana and others vs. O.P. Gupta, AIR 1996 SC 2936; Union of
India and another vs. Tarsem Lal and others, (2006) 10 SCC 145; K.
Anand Rao and others vs. S.S. Rawat, IAS and others, (2019) 13 SCC 24;
and Ratnank Mishra & Others vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
through Registrar General, 2025 INSC 1477.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 28-02-2026
14:20:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP: 17552
CONC-4869-2024
3
4. In turn, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the
petitioner has been promoted w.e.f.15/09/2004, therefore, in the light of
clear direction issued by this Court regarding payment of all the
consequential benefits of the promotional post, the petitioner is entitled for
the back-wages also, which have not been paid to the petitioner by
disobeying the order passed by this Court. In support of his submissions,
learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decisions in the
case of Inder Parkash Gupta vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors.,
(2004) 6 SCC 786; The Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board vs. C.
Muddaiah, (2007) 7 SCC 689; Union of India and others vs. Col. Ran
Singh Dudee, (2018) 8 SCC 53; Jyotsna Singh vs. State of Jharkhand and
Ors., AIR 2025 SC 4436; and Havaldar Tejbali vs. Major Nachhattar
Singh and Anr., 1997 Supreme (MP) 101. As such, he submits that by not
granting the consequential benefits, the respondent has wilfully disobeyed
the order passed by this Court and he deserves to be punished
appropriately.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties, questions that arise in the instant case are as to whether upon
granting promotion from back date, the employee is entitled to back wages
automatically, especially when the writ Court has ordered grant of all the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 28-02-2026
14:20:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP: 17552
CONC-4869-2024
4
consequential benefits of promotional post; and whether back wages are
included in the expression ‘all consequential benefits’?
7. Several times an identical question came before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, which was answered as under:
i. A three-judge Bench, in the case of Paluru Ramkrishnaiah and
others v. Union of India and another, AIR 1990 SC 166, held as under :
“19. Since, however, the judgment of this Court dated 2-2-1981
in Civil Appeal No. 441 of 1981 has not been challenged and
has become final, the next question which falls for consideration
is as to what further relief, if any, are the appellants in Civil
Appeal No.441 of 1981 entitled in pursuance of the civil
miscellaneous petitions referred to above filed by them. The
reliefs which they have claimed have already been indicated
above. It is now not disputed that the appellants of this appeal
have in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 2-2-1981
been given a back date promotion to the post of Chargeman II
synchronising with the dates of completion of their two years of
service as Supervisor ‘A’. The grievance of the petitioners,
however, is that this promotion tantamounts to implementation
of the order of this Court dated 2-2-1981 only on paper
inasmuch as they have not been granted the difference of back
wages and promotion to higher posts on the basis of their back
date promotion as Chargeman II. As already noticed earlier
certain writ petitions filed in Madhya Pradesh High Court were
allowed by that court on 4-4-1983 relying on the judgment of
this Court dated 2-2-1981 in Civil Appeal No. 441 of 1981.
Against the aforesaid judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High
Court dated 4-4-1983 Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 5987-
92 of 1986 were filed in this Court by the Union of India and
were dismissed on 28-7-1986. The findings of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in its judgment dated 4-4-1983 thus stand
approved by this Court. In this view of the matter to put them at
par it would be appropriate that the appellants in Civil Appeal
No. 441 of 1981 may also be granted the same relief which was
granted to the petitioners in the writ petitions before the Madhya
Pradesh High Court. As regards back wages the Madhya
Pradesh High Court held:-
“It is the settled service rule that there has to be no pay for no
work i.e. a person will not be entitled to any pay and allowance
during the period for which he did not perform the duties of a
higher post although after due consideration he was given aSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 28-02-2026
14:20:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP: 17552CONC-4869-2024
5
proper place in the gradation list having deemed to be promoted
to the higher post with effect from the date his junior was
promoted. So the petitioners are not entitled to claim any
financial benefit retrospectively. At the most they would be
entitled to refixation of their present salary on the basis of the
notional seniority granted to them in different grades so that
their present salary is not less than those who are immediately
below them.”
In so far as Supervisors ‘A’ who claimed promotion as
Chargeman II the following direction was accordingly given by
the Madhya Pradesh High Court in its judgment dated 4-4-1983
aforesaid:
“All these petitioners are also entitled to be treated as
Chargeman Grade II on completion of two years’ satisfactory
service as Supervisor Grade A. Consequently, notional seniority
of these persons have to be refixed in Supervisor Grade A,
Chargeman Grade II, Grade I and Assistant Foreman in cases of
those who are holding that post…. The petitioners are also
entitled to get their present salary refixed after giving them
notional seniority so that the same is not lower than those who
are immediately below them.”
ii. In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. O.P. Gupta, AIR 1996
SC 2936 (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the similar
controversy and held as under :
“7. This Court in Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of
India [(1989) 2 SCC 541 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 375 : (1989) 10
ATC 378 : (1989) 2 SCR 92] (SCR at p. 109 : SCC p. 556, para
19) considered the direction issued by the High Court and
upheld that there has to be “no pay for no work”, i.e., a person
will not be entitled to any pay and allowance during the period
for which he did not perform the duties of higher post, although
after due consideration, he was given a proper place in the
gradation list having been deemed to be promoted to the higher
post with effect from the date his junior was promoted. He will
be entitled only to step up the scale of pay retrospectively from
the deemed date but is not entitled to the payment of arrears of
the salary. The same ratio was reiterated in Virender Kumar,
G.M., N. Rlys. v. Avinash Chandra Chadha [(1990) 3 SCC 472 :
1991 SCC (L&S) 62 : (1990) 14 ATC 732] (SCC p. 482, para
16).
8. It is true, as pointed out by Shri Hooda, that in Union of
India v. K.V. Jankiraman [(1991) 4 SCC 109 : 1993 SCC (L&S)
387 : (1993) 23 ATC 322 : AIR 1991 SC 2010] this Court had
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 28-02-2026
14:20:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP: 17552
CONC-4869-2024
6
held that where the incumbent was willing to work but was
denied the opportunity to work for no fault of his, he is entitled
to the payment of arrears of salary. That is a case where the
respondent was kept under suspension during departmental
enquiry and sealed cover procedure was adopted because of the
pendency of the criminal case. When the criminal case ended in
his favour and departmental proceedings were held to be
invalid, this Court held that he was entitled to the arrears of
salary. That ratio has no application to the cases where the
claims for promotion are to be considered in accordance with
the rules and the promotions are to be made pursuant thereto.
9. In these appeals unless the seniority list is prepared and
finalised and promotions are made in accordance with the Rules
on the basis of the above seniority list, the question of
entitlement to work in the promotional posts does not arise.
Consequently, the payment of arrears of salary does not arise
since, admittedly the respondents had not worked during that
period. The High Court was, therefore, wholly illegal in
directing payment of arrears of salary. The order of the High
Court accordingly is quashed.”
iii. In the case of Union of India v. B.M. Jha, (2007) 11 SCC 632, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the similar question, followed
the earlier decisions in the case of State of Haryana v. O.P. Gupta (supra)
and A.K. Soumini v. State Bank of Travancore, (2003) 7 SCC 238 (three
judge Bench), and held as under :
“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 SCCSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 28-02-2026
14:20:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP: 17552CONC-4869-2024
7
(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 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.”
8. In the following cases also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt
with the almost similar controversy and held as under :
i. In the case of K. Ananda Rao Etc. vs. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS And
Others Etc., (2019) 13 SCC 24, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as
under:
“14. Since all these issues were not canvased before this Court
and were not gone into by this Court on 09.08.2017, the
question that arises is whether the expression “consequential
benefits” occurring in the order dated 09.08.2017 must be given
the interpretation that the employees were entitled to all salaries
and emoluments for the period that they had not even worked in
their respective organisations ? The order dated 09.08.2017
does not indicate that any such aspect of the matter was in
contemplation of this Court or the matter was addressed
from this stand point. In the absence of any discussion, it is
very difficult to say that this Court had thought of granting
something which was in excess of what was contemplated in
various policy documents culminating in the GO dated
08.08.2017. Those policy documents were not overridden or in
way found to be inoperative. As a matter of fact, they were not
even referred to.
17. Thus, purely on the principle of parity the employees of the
institution or entities in Schedule IX and X of 2014 Act could
not demand the benefit of enhancement of the age of
superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. That benefit came to
be conferred under policy documents and finally by the GO
dated 08.08.2017. Thus, the source was in those policySignature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 28-02-2026
14:20:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP: 17552CONC-4869-2024
8
documents and naturally the extent of benefits was also spelt out
in those instruments issued by the Government. The Circular
dated 28.06.2016 which was more or less adopted in
proceedings dated 11.06.2018 must be taken to be the governing
criteria in respect of such employees. Unless and until that
governing criteria was departed from specifically, mere
expression “consequential benefits” would not entitle the
concerned employees anything greater than what was
contemplated in the policy documents issued by the State
Government.”
ii. In the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak
Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and others, (2013) 10 SCC 324 the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held as under:-
“32. We may now deal with the judgment in J.K. Synthetics
Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal and another (supra) in detail. The facts of
that case were that the respondent was dismissed from service
on the basis of inquiry conducted by the competent authority.
The Labour Court held that the inquiry was not fair and proper
and permitted the parties to adduce evidence on the charges
levelled against the respondent. After considering the evidence,
the Labour Court gave benefit of doubt to the respondent and
substituted the punishment of dismissal from service with that
of stoppage of increments for two years. On an application filed
by the respondent, the Labour Court held that the respondent
was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages for the period
of unemployment. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ
petition and the Division Bench declined to interfere by
observing that the employer had willfully violated the order of
the Labour Court. On an application made by the respondent
under Section 6(6) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the
Labour Court amended the award. This Court upheld the power
of the Labour Court to amend the award but did not approve the
award of full back wages. After noticing several precedents to
which reference has been made hereinabove, the two Judge
Bench observed:
“There is also a misconception that whenever reinstatement
is directed, “continuity of service” and “consequential
benefits” should follow, as a matter of course. The
disastrous effect of granting several promotions as a
“consequential benefit” to a person who has not worked for
10 to 15 years and who does not have the benefit of
necessary experience for discharging the higher duties and
functions of promotional posts, is seldom visualised while
granting consequential benefits automatically. WheneverSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 28-02-2026
14:20:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP: 17552CONC-4869-2024
9
courts or tribunals direct reinstatement, they should apply their
judicial mind to the facts and circumstances to decide whether
“continuity of service” and/or “consequential benefits” should
also be directed.
Coming back to back wages, even if the court finds it
necessary to award back wages, the question will be whether
back wages should be awarded fully or only partially (and if
so the percentage). That depends upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. Any income received by the
employee during the relevant period on account of alternative
employment or business is a relevant factor to be taken note of
while awarding back wages, in addition to the several factors
mentioned in Rudhan Singh and Uday Narain Pandey.
Therefore, it is necessary for the employee to plead that he was
not gainfully employed from the date of his termination. While
an employee cannot be asked to prove the negative, he has to at
least assert on oath that he was neither employed nor engaged in
any gainful business or venture and that he did not have any
income. Then the burden will shift to the employer. But there is,
however, no obligation on the terminated employee to search
for or secure alternative employment. Be that as it may.”
9. Although in the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the
petitioner, in the case of Inder Parkash Gupta (supra); The Commissioner,
Karnataka Housing Board (supra); Union of India and others (supra);
Jyotsna Singh (supra); and Havaldar Tejbali (supra), the effect of
expression ‘all consequential benefits’ has been taken into consideration,
but in none of these decisions, question of grant of back wages in lieu of
consequential benefits upon granting promotion from back date, that too in
contempt jurisdiction, is considered. Further, in all these decisions,
previous decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Paluru
Ramkrishnaiah and others (supra) (3 judge Bench); State of Haryana and
others vs. O.P. Gupta (supra); A.K. Soumini v. State Bank of Travancore
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 28-02-2026
14:20:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP: 17552
CONC-4869-2024
10
(supra) (3 judge Bench); and Union of India v. B.M. Jha (supra) have not
been taken into consideration, so the decisions relied upon by learned
Counsel for the petitioner, do not provide any assistance to the questions
involved in the instant contempt petition.
10. While considering the scope of contempt jurisdiction the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has in the case of Jhareswar Prasad Paul & Anr. vs. Tarak
Nath Ganguly and Ors., (2002) 5 SCC 352, held as under:-
“12. ………At the cost of repetition be it stated here that the
court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned
with the question of contumacious conduct of the party, which
alleged to have committed deliberate default in complying with
the directions in the judgment or order. If the judgment or order
does not contain any specific direction regarding a matter or if
there is any ambiguity in the directions issued therein then it
will be better to direct the parties to approach the court which
disposed of the matter for clarification of the order instead of
the court exercising contempt jurisdiction taking upon itself the
power to decide the original proceeding in a manner not dealt
with by the court passing the judgment or order. If this
limitation is borne in mind then criticisms which are sometimes
levelled against the courts exercising contempt of court
jurisdiction “that it has exceeded its powers in granting
substantive relief and issuing a direction regarding the same
without proper adjudication of the dispute” in its entirety can be
avoided. This will also avoid multiplicity of proceedings
because the party which is prejudicially affected by the
judgment or order passed in the contempt proceeding and
granting relief and issuing fresh directions is likely to challenge
that order and that may give rise to another round of litigation
arising from a proceeding which is intended to maintain the
majesty and image of courts.”
11. In the present case, the direction contained in the order dtd.
20/08/2024 passed by Writ Court was to grant promotion with all
consequential benefits; however, there was no specific or express direction
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 28-02-2026
14:20:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP: 17552
CONC-4869-2024
11
for payment of back wages. The question whether back wages are payable,
involves an independent consideration and cannot be presumed to be
implicit in every case under the expression ‘all consequential benefits.’ In
contempt jurisdiction, this Court is required to confine itself to the plain
terms of the order and to examine whether there has been wilful and
deliberate non-compliance.
12. A bare perusal of the record shows that in compliance of the order
dated 20/08/2024 passed by this Court, the petitioner has been promoted
w.e.f.15/09/2004 and his seniority has been fixed notionally and the period
w.e.f.01/11/2005 till 28/10/2015 has also been directed to be taken into
consideration for notional fixation of his salary. Further, it appears that the
petitioner was already promoted w.e.f.29/10/2015 and he was receiving the
benefits of the promotional post from the said date. Under such
circumstances, denial of back-wages w.e.f.15/09/2004, does not amount to
wilful disobedience of the order dated 20/08/2024 passed by this Court.
13. In view of the aforesaid legal position settled by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the above-mentioned cases, it cannot be said that the
petitioner, in the guise of an order passed by the High Court granting
consequential benefits, is entitled to back wages also. And as such, this
Court finds that the back wages are not covered in the expression ‘all
consequential benefits’ and consequently, this Court does not find any case
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 28-02-2026
14:20:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP: 17552
CONC-4869-2024
12
of wilful disobedience.
14. Accordingly, this contempt petition is dismissed.
15. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a fresh writ petition
in respect of his remaining grievance regarding back-wages, if law permits.
16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
Arun*
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 28-02-2026
14:20:07