Judgment 1. All the three writ applications, the reliefs and the questions of law being common, with consent of parties, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment/order. 2. In all the three writ applications, the grievance of the petitioners, which has been pressed, is that although they were given regular promotion from the posts of Junior Engineer to the posts of Assistant Engineer with effect from 27.12.1978 but have been illegally and arbitrarily denied the monetary benefit, including in the consequential revised scale, arising therefrom for the period 27.12.1978 to 27.12.1988 and have accordingly prayed for quashing of the order/notification of their promotion in so far as it denied the aforesaid benefit. 3. In short, the case of the petitioner in the first writ application (C.W.J.C. No. 3391 of 1994) is that he was initially appointed as Junior Engineer in the irrigation, now Water Resources Department, and, on consideration of seniority and merit was promoted as Assistant Engineer, vide Notification No. 968 dated 3rd March, 1979 in continuation of the earlier notification dated 27.12.1978. A photo copy of the said notification dated 3rd March, 1979 has been annexed as Annexure 2. The petitioner, pursuant to the said notification, was given posting as Sub-divisional Officer in Valmikinagar against the post of Assistant Engineer. On 6th February, 1980 he was transferred to Purnea. Later the petitioners promotion as Assistant Engineer was regularised with effect from the due date i.e., from 27th December, 1978, vide notification dated 20th April, 1990. In the said notification it was stated that the benefit of salary would be given from the date of promotion or from the date of taking over charge of the office, whichever is earlier. The petitioner was given Selection Grade by notification dated 18th July, 1992 on completion of ten years of satisfactory service. However, the pay fixation was referred to the Finance Department which finally, vide Memo No. 665 dated 1st March, 1993, decided that as per its letter dated 22nd February, 1988, the monetary benefit of the salary would be given to the petitioner from the date of assumption of charge or from 22nd February, 1988, whichever is later. 4. Similarly, in the other two writ applications, in short, the facts are that the petitioners were initially appointed as Junior Engineers in the Irrigation, now Water Resources Department of the Government of Bihar. 4. Similarly, in the other two writ applications, in short, the facts are that the petitioners were initially appointed as Junior Engineers in the Irrigation, now Water Resources Department of the Government of Bihar. Later, they were initially either given charge of the sub-division by their posting as Sub- divisional Officer against the post of Assistant Engineer or by virtue of seniority were entitled for promotion with effect from 27.12.1978 and consequently the notifications were issued giving them promotion as Assistant Engineer with effect from 27.12.1978 but were denied the monetary benefit of salary etc. for the period 27.12.1978 to 22.2.1988 purporting to be in the light of the Finance Department letter dated 22nd February, 1988, contained in Annexure 7 to the first writ application. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in all the three cases. The stand in regard to the above is that in compliance of the circular of the Finance Department of the State Government it has been held that the petitioner is entitled to draw salary of the promoted post of Assistant Engineer with effect from the date of holding charge of the same in the concerned sub-division or with effect from 22.2.1988, i.e. the date of the said circular, whichever is later. According to the respondents, the said circular of the Finance Department specifically mandates that the benefit shall not be granted with retrospective effect. Besides this on facts the respondents have disputed that the petitioner were promoted as Assistant Engineer of the Bihar Engineering Service Class II, vide earlier notifications. According to the respondents, the petitioners were simply posted in the sub-division on current charge basis in their own pay scale of Junior Engineer. It is stated that after disposal of the Court cases, the promotion of the petitioners and others on the post of Assistant Engineer was finalised by the department in terms of notification dated 20th April, 1990 and the petitioners were promoted on the said post with retrospective effect from 27.12.1978 with a direction that the petitioners and others would be entitled for the benefit of salary etc. of the promoted post with effect from the due date of promotion or from the date of officiation of the promoted post, whichever is later. It is further stated that the direction contained in the said notification to grant benefit etc. of the promoted post with effect from the due date of promotion or from the date of officiation of the promoted post, whichever is later. It is further stated that the direction contained in the said notification to grant benefit etc. of the promoted post either from the date of promotion or from the date of holding current charge of the promoted post, whichever is later, was made ignoring the aforementioned circular of the Finance Department which was issued in continuation of the earlier circular contained in later no. 2074 dated 4.4.1985, from perusal whereof it would appear that under the said circular a promotee was entitled for the benefit of promoted post from the date of notification of the regular promotion. The said circular was modified by the Finance Department Circular dated 22nd February, 1988 to the extent that the promotee is made entitled to the benefit of promoted post from the date of continuous officiation over the promoted post but in terms of clause Cha of the said Circular, the said benefit was also held admissible with effect from 22.2.1988 and as such the direction in the notification giving promotion to the petitioners that they would be granted benefit of pay etc. of the promoted post either with effect from the due date of promotion or with effect from date of holding charge of the promoted post, whichever is later, was contrary to the aforesaid circular and, accordingly, in order to resolve the aforesaid controvery the matter was referred to the Finance Department which also advised to grant benefit of the petitioners of the promoted post with effect from 22.2.1988 and in compliance thereof the order was issued directing that the petitioner and others are entitled to the benefit of the promoted post with effect from 22.2.1988 or the date of holding charge, whichever is later. 6. As regards the challenge of the petitioners in regard to the validity of clause Cha of the Finance Department circular dated 22.2.1988, it is contended by the respondents that the same is not arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16(1) and 39(d) of the Constitution of India. In fact, there is a purpose behind the said circular. 6. As regards the challenge of the petitioners in regard to the validity of clause Cha of the Finance Department circular dated 22.2.1988, it is contended by the respondents that the same is not arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16(1) and 39(d) of the Constitution of India. In fact, there is a purpose behind the said circular. It is stated that in terms of the earlier circular dated 4.4.1985 a promotee was entitled to the benefit of promoted post with effect from the date of issue of notification of promotion and not from the date of continuous officiation over the promoted post against which various employees union of the State Government raised grievances and in deference to the demands the State Government modified the said circular by another circular dated 22.2.1988 to the extent that the promotee will be entitled to the monetary benefit of the promoted post with effect from the date of officiation over the said post but the said benefit was made effective from the date of iss.ue of the said circular, i.e., 22.2.1988 as otherwise there would have been no end for raking up the claim which has since been settled. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since promotions have been granted to the petitioners from retrospective effect, the monetary benefit from that date could not have been denied to them under law. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India etc. V/s. K. V. Jankiraman etc. [1992 (1) PLJR 27 (S.C.)] and on the reported decisions of this Court in the case of Dr. Paras Nath Prasad V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors. [1990 (2) PLJR 248] and in the case of Rana Raghunath Prasad Singh and anr. V/s. The State of Bihar and ors. [1993 (1) PLJR 519]. Reliance has also been placed by them on unreported orders/decisions of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7227 of 1992 disposed of on 5.8.1993 and C.W.J.C. No. 11691 of 1993, disposed of on 5.8.1994. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that none of the said decisions has considered the scope of 1988 Circular of the Finance Department which the authorities concerned cannot ignore. Learned counsel also ventured to submit that in Dr. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that none of the said decisions has considered the scope of 1988 Circular of the Finance Department which the authorities concerned cannot ignore. Learned counsel also ventured to submit that in Dr. Paras Nath Prasads case (supra) a Division Bench of this Court although in paragraph 19 has placed reliance on the decision of the Kerala High Court but has wrongly reiterated that the said decision is of the Supreme Court. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the State that in the cases cited on behalf of the petitioner, the facts were quite different from the facts of the present case and thus, the said decisions are of no avail to the petitioners. According to the learned counsel for the State, in those cases, the facts were that the petitioners were promoted on the ground that their juniors were promoted with a date prior to the date of notification by which the petitioners were promoted whereas in the present case, it is not the case of the petitioners that they have been given promotion with retrospective effect as their juniors had been promoted from that date. 9. In C.W.J.C. No. 10793 of 1993 learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that under the notification dated 7th September, 1991, the petitioners were promoted as Assistant Engineer along with one Shri Swaran Singh with retrospective effect from the due date mentioned therein but all were denied the monetary benefit. Swaran Singh moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11691 of 1993 with the grievance that despite his promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 14.6.1975 and his further promotion on that basis the Junior Selection Grade with effect from 1.4.1981, his pay and pension had been fixed only as admissible to the post of Junior Engineer. 10. This Court after considering the Finance Department circular dated 4.4.1985, rule 58 of the Bihar Service Code and rule 74 of the Bihar Financial Rules held that there cannot be any doubt that Shri Singh was entitled to pay and other consequential benefits of the post of Assistant Engineer from 14.6.1975 and the Junior Selection Grade from 1.4.1981 and further held the claim of Shri Singh for refixation of pay and pension wholly justified. The petitioners, who were also promoted retrospectively with effect from the due date, i.e., 27.12.1975 by the same notification dated 7th September, 1991 (Annexure 3) and were placed at serial no. 34 and 36 respectively, have arbitrarily been denied the same benefit as was given to Shri Swaran Singh after the judgment of this Court in his case. According to the learned counsel, this act of the respondents besides being arbitrary, discriminatory is also mala fide. 11. From perusal of the aforesaid judgment and the notification dated 9.9.1991 (Annexure 3), I find that the case of the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 10793 of 1993 is identical to that of the case of Swaran Singh who filed the aforementioned writ application (C.W.J.C. No. 11696 of 1993) for similar relief and the Division Bench of this Court directed to re-fix his pay admissible to the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 14.6.1975, i.e., the date from which he was given due promotion, vide same notification dated 9th September, 1991 whereby and whereunder the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 10793 of 1993 were also given promotion as Assistant Engineer with effect from the due date, i.e., 27.12.1978. 12. This Court in the case of Swaran Singh also awarded cost of Rs. 1,000/- as against the respondent State of Bihar and its officers. This was repeatedly brought to the notice of the learned State Counsel and the matter was also adjourned at his request to enable the respondents, including the Secretary-cum-Commissioner of the Finance Department to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the decision of this Court. Despite this, learned State Counsel, on instructions, ventured to distinguish this case with the case of Swaran Singh. I am unable to appreciate this attitude of the respondents that despite the law being laid down by this Court in identical matters the employees are compelled to move this Court for grant of similar relief on same grounds which besides causing unnecessary harassment to the employees concerned also burdens this Court by the increase in number of pendency of cases and Courts time in unnecessarily wasted over such matters. I am, thus, constrained to hold that the action of the respondents is mala fide inasmuch as the respondents have committed gross injustice to the petitioners by illegally and arbitrarily depriving them of the monetary benefit for such a long period. 13. I am, thus, constrained to hold that the action of the respondents is mala fide inasmuch as the respondents have committed gross injustice to the petitioners by illegally and arbitrarily depriving them of the monetary benefit for such a long period. 13. There is hardly any distinction between the case of the petitioners of the other two writ applications and the case of the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 10793 of 1993. However, as learned counsel for the State ventured to distinguish the earlier Division Bench judgments of this Court in the cases of Dr. Paras Nath Prasad (supra) and Swaran Singh (supra) on the ground that none of the said decisions has considered the effect of 1988 Circular of the Finance Department, I wish to deal with this aspect of the matter also. The relevant clauses of 1988 Circular, a photo copy whereof have been annexed as Annexure 7 to the writ application, are as follows : 14. According to clause (Gha) promotion with retrospective effect is permissible but according to clause (Cha), it is to apply prospectively and earlier similar cases are not to be given any consideration in the light of the same. I am unable to appreciate this. If a person is entitled for promotion with retrospective effect from a due date but for some reason the order/notification to that effect was not issued on the said date and the same was issued later but giving promotion with retrospective effect from the due date, then I fail to appreciate as to why the benefits arising the reform should be denied to such employee. 15. Learned counsel for the State, however, contended that in such cases the employee cannot claim salary from retrospective date merely because of notional promotion inasmuch as in their cases, the normal rule of no work no pay would apply and the decision of the Finance Department of the State Government is based on the said principle. The said submission of the learned counsel for the State is wholly misconceived and untenable. The said submission of the learned counsel for the State is wholly misconceived and untenable. The normal rule of no work no pay, in my opinion, applies only where the officer did not perform duty of a post even though he was required to do so and not where the officer was due for his promotion to higher post from a particular date and was willing to perform the duty of the said post but was not allowed or was prevented in any way by the authority to perform the work of the said post either on account of lapses of the authority or his arbitrary action. 16. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India etc. vs. K. V. Jankiraman etc. (supra) held that Government servant denied due promotion on the ground of some criminal/disciplinary proceedings, later completely exonerated of the same, the normal rule of no work no pay is not applicable for denial of benefit which would have been made during the pendency of the said proceeding. In the said case, the Supreme Court also ruled that the normal rule of no work no pay is not applicable to cases where the employee although is willing to work is get away from work by the authority for no fault of his. I am, therefore, of the view that 1988 Circular would not apply to such cases. Even the statutory rules like Rule 58 of the Bihar Service Code and Rule 74 of the Bihar Financial Rules which deal with payment of financial benefits with retrospective effect, do not put any such restriction that a Government servant who is willing to work from due date of his promotion to a higher post but is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his, may be due to slackness or any arbitrary action, then he would not be entitled for the financial benefits with effect from the due date. 17. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 10793 of 1993 were not given promotions with effect from a date when their promotions were due. 17. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 10793 of 1993 were not given promotions with effect from a date when their promotions were due. On the contrary, from perusal of the notification giving them promotion, as contained in Annexure 1/A of C.W.J.C. No. 7008 of 1994 and Annexure 5 of C.W.J.C. No. 3391 of 1994, it appears that their promotions to the post of Assistant Engineer was given with effect from "Pronoti Ki Dai Tithi", i.e., from the due date of promotion. 18. Further, in the case of Swaran Singh (supra) the notification giving him promotion with retrospective effect stipulated that monetary benefit would be available to him either from the date of promotion or from the date when he assumed charge of the office, whichever is later. Accordingly, this Court directed to re-fix his pay and pay the consequential benefit thereof with effect from 14.6.1975, i.e., the due date of promotion. In the instant cases also, the notification dated 20.4.1990, contained in Annexure 1/A of C.W.J.C. No. 7008 of 1994 and Annexure 5 of C.W.J.C. No. 3391 of 1994, contained similar stipulation that the monetary benefit will be available to the person concerned either from the due date of promotion or the date on which he assumed charge of the office, whichever is later. Thus, in my opinion, the respondents were wholly unjustified in not giving the similar relief to the petitioners of these cases as has been given to Swaran Singh and their action in keeping the petitioners deprived of the monetary benefit arising from their retrospective promotion for such a long time, besides being arbitrary and discriminatory is mala fide. 19. Accordingly, the writ applications are allowed with cost, which is assessed at Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) to be paid to each of the petitioners by respondents no. 2 to 6 from their own pockets which they would share amongst them equally. The respondent State of Bihar is directed to pay the petitioners the full salary and other allowances of the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from the date of their promotions, i.e., 27.12.1978 with an interest at the rate of 15% compoundable per annum on the amount of due salary and other allowance etc. to which the petitioners were entitled and not paid.