This landmark case addressed administrative injustice against a group of senior employees who were unfairly denied promotion in favor of their juniors. After successfully challenging the employer's decision through litigation, the employees were granted "notional promotion," officially confirming their seniority. However, the employer refused to grant the actual salary and monetary benefits for the period they were wrongfully kept out of the higher post, forcing the employees to pursue further legal action for financial recovery.

The central legal question before the High Court was whether employees, who were ready and willing to perform the duties of the higher post but were prevented from doing so purely due to the employer's administrative error, could legally be denied the corresponding salary on the basis of the "No Work No Pay" rule.

The court ruled unequivocally that the "No Work No Pay" principle only applies when an employee voluntarily chooses to abstain from duty. It does not apply when the fault lies entirely with the administration. The Justice held that withholding the salary in this situation amounted to a "double punishment" for the innocent employees: first, by denying the rightful promotion, and second, by denying the financial reward that should have followed. The court stressed that established legal exceptions exist for this rule when the employee’s exclusion from work is the result of the employer’s wrongful action.

The State attempted to argue that a prior ruling required salary to be effective only upon physically taking charge of the post. However, the High Court distinguished this, noting that the employees in this case were still in active service when their entitlement arose, making them eligible for all back wages, unlike in the precedent cited by the State.