S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) THE petitioner, an employee of the respondents, by this petition is praying for the direction to the respondents to pay him the actual benefits of promotion and not the notional benefits which have been given to him on his promotion to the post of Sr. Clerk from deemed date. Second prayer has been made for direction to the respondents to promote him on the post of Dy. Accountant from the date on which his immediate juniors have been promoted with all consequential benefits. ( 3 ) THIS petition has been contested by the respondents by filing a detailed reply to the same. ( 4 ) THERE is no dispute that under the order dated 10-4-1992 the petitioner has been given promotion by the respondent from 12-12-1978 in the cadre of Senior Clerk but with the condition that deemed date period is considered as notional. So the petitioner has not been given the actual promotional benefits. The respondents have in the reply justified the denial of actual promotional benefits to the petitioner relying on the resolution dated 10-3-1960 and 5-9-1984. So far as the claim of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Dy. Accountant is concerned, the respondents have come up with the case that the post of Sr. Clerk and that of Dy. Accountant are post of same pay scale. It is averred that in case the petitioners claim for deemed date of promotion is accepted on the post of Dy. Accountant he will not get any monetary benefit. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that both the post of Dy. Accountant and Sr. Clerk are the post of same pay scale. He is also not disputing the fact that in case the deemed date of promotion is given to the petitioner on the post of Dy. Accountant, the petitioner will not get any monetary benefit. So the claim of the petitioner for promotion from deemed date on the post of Dy. Accountant has no merits and it cannot be granted. Accordingly to this extent, this writ petition is dismissed. Accountant, the petitioner will not get any monetary benefit. So the claim of the petitioner for promotion from deemed date on the post of Dy. Accountant has no merits and it cannot be granted. Accordingly to this extent, this writ petition is dismissed. ( 6 ) IN support of his claim for actual promotional benefits, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Harbans Singh vs. State of Punjab and Ors. in civil appeal No. 7412/95 arising out of SLP (C) No. 5902/94 decided on 3-8-1995, in the case of State of Gujarat vs. S. Tripathy and Ors. reported in 27 (2) GLR 1391 and the decision of this court in the case of Maganlal Harishanker Jani vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1987 (2) GLH (UJ) 31. ( 7 ) SO far as the reliance of the learned counsel for the respondents to justify the denial of the actual promotion benefits to the petitioner on the post of Sr. Clerk on the two Government resolutions is concerned, it is suffice to say that the same are not applicable to the present case. It is a case where the respondents without any justification have denied the promotion to the petitioner and his juniors were given the promotion. He has continuously represented his case and ultimately his claim for promotion was found to be justified but as if he is responsible for this delay in promotion he has been penalised by restricting the benefits of promotion only notionally. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of A. P. vs. K. V. L. Narsimha Rao reported in 1999 (4) SCC 181 . However, that decision favours the petitioners case and not of the respondents. Their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court in this case held that in normal circumstances when retrospective promotions are effected all benefits flowing therefrom, including monetary benefits must be extended to an officer who has been denied promotion earlier. But in the facts of that case the Apex Court has ultimately not granted the actual promotional benefits but those facts are not present in this case. But in the facts of that case the Apex Court has ultimately not granted the actual promotional benefits but those facts are not present in this case. Here is the case where the delay in giving the promotion is exclusively and solely attributable to the respondents but the respondents to conceal their own inaction or to save themselves have passed deliberately this order of giving only notional benefits to the petitioner. ( 8 ) IN the result, this special civil application succeeds to the extent of this claim of the petitioner and it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled for the actual promotional benefits due from the date of his promotion on the post of Sr. Clerk. The respondents are directed to undertake the exercise to determine the actual monetary promotional benefits which are available to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of writ of this order and pay the amount to the petitioner within one month next. ( 9 ) THE petitioner has unnecessarily been dragged into litigation by the respondents. The petitioner was a work-charge employee and there is all possibility that he would have been now retired from the services also. In these facts of this case, this low paid employees who was constrained by the respondents to file this litigation, deserves to be compensated for the expenses which he incurred in filing of this special civil application before this court. On being asked by the court, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has been paid Rs. 5000/towards his professional fees by the petitioner. However, in case the petitioner produces on the record of this special civil application or the counsel for the petitioner produces any proof on the record of this special civil application that the petitioner paid to him Rs. 5000. 00 towards the professional fees, office is directed to tax this fees in the formal order otherwise the respondents shall pay Rs. 1000. 00 as costs of this petition to the petitioner. This amount of costs has to be paid to the petitioner by Account Payee Draft. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. .