Delhi High Court Rejects ‘No Work, No Pay’ Defence, Orders Salary Arrears for Teacher Denied Timely Appointment Due to DSSSB’s Mistake
Court
upholds CAT ruling granting retrospective seniority, increments and salary
arrears from September 13, 2019, after recruitment agency misplaced a page of
candidate’s admit card.
LEGAL
CORRESPONDENT
NEW
DELHI, January 19, 2026: In a significant ruling protecting
the rights of candidates who suffer because of administrative lapses during
government recruitment, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by
the Government of NCT of Delhi challenging an order directing payment of salary
arrears and other consequential service benefits to a Post Graduate Teacher
(PGT) whose appointment was delayed because the Delhi Subordinate Services
Selection Board (DSSSB) misplaced a page of her admit card.
A
Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan
held that the principle of "no work, no pay" could not be invoked
against a candidate who was not responsible for the delay in her appointment.
The
Court upheld the September 19, 2025, order of the Central Administrative
Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, directing the authorities to grant teacher
Swati Sharma seniority, increments, salary arrears and other consequential
benefits with effect from September 13, 2019, when her counterparts and
candidates lower in merit were permitted to join service.
The
judgment was delivered in Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others v. Swati Sharma,
W.P.(C) No. 669/2026.
Teacher
Scored Above Cut-Off but Appointment Was Delayed
The
dispute arose from a recruitment process conducted by DSSSB for the post of PGT
(Sanskrit) under Advertisement No. 04/2017, Post Code 117/17.
Swati
Sharma participated in the selection process and secured 177.50 marks,
substantially exceeding the prescribed cut-off. Despite her successful
performance, her appointment was withheld because the second page of her admit
card could not be traced in the records maintained by DSSSB.
While
other successful candidates received appointment letters in 2019 and joined
service by September that year, Sharma was compelled to wait for more than a
year.
The
recruitment agency eventually verified her participation through alternative
records, including attendance sheets and video footage.
She
received her offer of appointment on August 10, 2020, followed by an
appointment letter dated October 1, 2020, and ultimately joined service on
October 21, 2020.
The
administrative lapse resulted in her losing the seniority position and service
benefits that she would otherwise have enjoyed alongside candidates selected
through the same recruitment process.
CAT
Holds Recruitment Agency Responsible
Aggrieved
by the denial of retrospective service benefits, Sharma approached the Central
Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 3896/2023.
The
matter was heard by a Bench comprising B. Anand, Member (Administrative),
and Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (Judicial).
In
its order dated September 19, 2025, the Tribunal observed that a professional
recruitment agency such as DSSSB was expected to preserve essential recruitment
documents carefully and, where necessary, digitise them to prevent their loss.
The
Tribunal criticised the recruitment agency for failing to maintain proper
records and observed that an innocent candidate should not suffer throughout
her career because of mistakes committed by the recruiting authority.
It
noted that Sharma had participated in the examination, secured high marks and
fulfilled the recruitment requirements. There was no allegation that she had
contributed to the delay.
The
Tribunal also considered decisions of the Supreme Court concerning the
restoration of seniority where candidates had suffered because of procedural
irregularities in selection processes.
These
included Sunil and Others v. High Court of Delhi and Others, Apoorva
Pathak v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Another, and C. Jayachandran
v. State of Kerala and Others.
Allowing
her application, the Tribunal directed the authorities to grant seniority,
increments and other consequential benefits, including salary arrears, from
September 13, 2019.
It
further directed implementation within six weeks of receiving a certified copy
of its order.
Delhi
Government Challenges Payment of Salary Arrears
The
Delhi Government challenged the Tribunal's order before the High Court,
principally contending that Sharma was not entitled to salary arrears for the
period during which she had not actually performed duties.
Appearing
for the Government, Additional Standing Counsel Yeeshu Jain, assisted by
Advocate Jyoti Tyagi, relied upon the principle of "no work, no pay".
The
Government argued that salary arrears could not be awarded for a period
preceding the teacher's actual joining.
The
High Court, however, rejected this contention.
The
Division Bench noted that the Government had not alleged any fault on the
teacher's part in the delayed issuance of her appointment letter.
The
Court observed:
"The
principle of ‘No work, no pay’ cannot be invoked in such circumstances
particularly when the DSSSB took its own sweet time to locate the second page
of the respondent’s admit card and to verify her participation in the selection
process."
The
Court found no justification for interfering with the Tribunal's decision.
Consequently,
it dismissed the Government's writ petition along with the pending application.
Employee
Cannot Be Penalised for Administrative Mistakes
The
ruling reinforces an important principle in service jurisprudence: a government
employee or selected candidate should not be deprived of legitimate service
benefits merely because the recruiting authority failed to discharge its
administrative responsibilities.
Although
the principle of "no work, no pay" ordinarily governs claims for
salary during periods when an employee has not rendered service, the High Court
made clear that it cannot be mechanically invoked where the inability to work
arose from an administrative lapse for which the candidate was not responsible.
The
decision is particularly relevant to government recruitment disputes involving
delayed appointments, misplaced documents and procedural mistakes committed by
recruiting agencies.
However,
the Court's conclusion was based on the specific facts of the case,
particularly the undisputed absence of fault on the part of the selected
teacher.
Seniority,
Increments and Salary Arrears Protected
With
the dismissal of the Government's writ petition, the CAT's directions remain
undisturbed.
Sharma
is entitled, under the Tribunal's order, to seniority, increments, salary
arrears and other consequential benefits with effect from September 13, 2019,
notwithstanding her actual joining on October 21, 2020.
The
decision also underscores the responsibility of public recruitment agencies to
maintain accurate records and ensure that candidates do not suffer financial
and professional disadvantages because of administrative negligence.
Legal
Representation
Before
the Central Administrative Tribunal, the applicant was represented by Advocates
Nikhil Pawar, Anuj Aggarwal, Tanya Rose, Bhumica Kundra and Shakib Malik.
The
case was handled by the legal team associated with Anuj Aggarwal &
Company, Advocates, a New Delhi-based law firm practising in service and
employment law.
The
Government's challenge before the Delhi High Court was dismissed on January 19,
2026.
Case
Details
Delhi
High Court: Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others v.
Swati Sharma
W.P.(C)
No. 669/2026
Date
of Order: January 19, 2026
Coram:
Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan
Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench: O.A. No.
3896/2023
Date
of Order: September 19, 2025
Coram:
B. Anand, Member (Administrative), and Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (Judicial)
Anuj
Aggarwal & Company
Advocates
Office
Addresses:
K-17,
2nd Floor,
Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi – 110014
483,
Block-II, Lawyers Chambers,
Delhi High Court,
New Delhi – 110003
Mobile:
9891403206
Email: anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com
anujaggarwalcompany@gmail.com
Website: https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php
No comments:
Post a Comment