Judgment : 1. This writ petition has been preferred to issue a writ of certionari or any other appropriate writ or order, calling for the records in I.D.No.171 of 1984, dated 18. 1986, and quash the award of the first respondent, viz., the Labour Court, Coimbatore, in the said I.D. 2. The second respondent has moved the Labour Court on behalf of a worker, R.Ramaswami. The claim of the said Ramaswami was that he should have been paid the arrears of salary after refixation of his pay from the date of his promotion as assistant, viz., from 26. 1962. Subsequently, he was reverted to the post of Clerk from 6. 1963 to 14. 1963. His junior, one V.R.Sambandam, Typist, was promoted as assistant on 25. 1962 and he continued as assistant. After prolonged correspondence with the petitioner, his seniority was restored to the original position as on 26. 1992 by memos dated 19. 1970 and 14. 1973 of the Superintending Engineer, Mettur Dam. Further, the Superintending Engineer, Mettur Dam, in his Memo, dated 19. 1970, issued directions to refix the pay of the petitioner consequent to the restoration of the seniority, in the said Memo, the Superintending Engineer had stated the pay of the said R.Ramaswami would be regulated on par with that of his junior Thiru V.R.Sambandam. But this direction was not carried out. Hence, the second respondent made an application on 30.9.1971 to the petitioner herein. But his claim was rejected by the respondent by his memo, dated 211. 1975. 3. Hence, the second respondent herein filedapetition in I.D.No.174of 1984, before the Labour Court, Coimbatore, the first respondent herein. The contention of the petitioner before the lower Court was that the said R.Ramaswami was appointed as Typist on 18. 1956, and that thereafter, he was converted as clerk with effect from 12. 1958. Subsequently, he got his promotion as Assistant with effect from 26. 1962. His junior Mr.V.R.Sambandam got his promotion from the category of Typist on 25. 1962. The said R.Ramaswami faced reversion as clerk and worked as Clerk from 6. 1963 to 14. 1965 for want of vacancy. But, Mr.V.R.Sambandam continued as assistant. Hence, the Board rejected the claim of Thiru R.Ramaswami, stating that since he has not worked in the post of Assistant, he should not claim the pay for the said period. 1962. The said R.Ramaswami faced reversion as clerk and worked as Clerk from 6. 1963 to 14. 1965 for want of vacancy. But, Mr.V.R.Sambandam continued as assistant. Hence, the Board rejected the claim of Thiru R.Ramaswami, stating that since he has not worked in the post of Assistant, he should not claim the pay for the said period. Considering the facts and circumstances in the case, the Labour Court passed an award holding that Thiru R.Ramaswami was entitled for refixation of his pay in the post of assistant from 25. 1962 onwards and issued directions to pay the arrears after refixation of the salary. 4. The petitioner has raised several contentions in the present writ petition. But, it has been admitted that the aforesaid R.Ramaswami was given paper promotion with effect from 25. 1962. It is submitted that the employee’s promotion was not proper and when subsequently he was given promotion from an early date, the consequential benefits should also be given to him. Reliance is based upon a case in Shaikh Mehaboob v. Railway Board and others, 1982 (I) LLN 151, in which a civil servant was promoted with retrospective effect, and after considering the claim of the said employee, monetary benefits were also given to him. In this case, the question is whether the aforesaid R.Ramaswami should be given the monetary benefits as Assistant for the period from 6. 1963 to 14. 1965. As already stated, he was under reversion as junior assistant and he continued to per form his duties as junior assistant. His continuance as Junior Assistant was on account of irregular reversion, which was subsequently rectified. I can understand that if the petitioner has not at all served in any post and was out of the employment, the principle, no work no pay can be applied. Even then the principle cannot be applied uniformly in all cases, where an employee or a servant is kept out of work for no fault on his part. Therefore, in my opinion, the decision of the Board that the period during which the said Ramaswami served as junior assistant from 6. 1963 to 14. 1965, would entitle him only for the pay in the category of junior assistant, is not acceptable. As stated earlier, he continued in the service to discharge his duties. Therefore, the claim of the said R.Ramaswami was rightly accepted by the Labour Court. 5. 1963 to 14. 1965, would entitle him only for the pay in the category of junior assistant, is not acceptable. As stated earlier, he continued in the service to discharge his duties. Therefore, the claim of the said R.Ramaswami was rightly accepted by the Labour Court. 5. I see no reason to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.