Judgment : 1. The petitioner prays for the issue of writ of ceriorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the respondent in Rc.No.H3/123983/94 dated 212. 1998 and quash the particular portion of the impugned order denying me monetary benefits from 11. 1994 and direct the respondent to sanction the monetary benefits from 11. 1994 and pay the arrears of pay and allowances of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr.S.Sadasharam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. .3. There is not much of factual controversy. The petitioner approached this Court on the earlier occasion and filed W.P.No.6350 of 1995. By order dated 210. 1998, the learned single Judge of this Court ultimately held thus:- .I am of the opinion that the action of the first respondent in not including the petitioner in the panel of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) for the year 1994 cannot be accepted. Accordingly, I sustain the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. I have already stated that the petitioner has no grievance with regard to inclusion of respondents 2 and 3 in the said panel. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the first respondent to include the petitioners name in the panel of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) for the year 1994 and consider his claim for promotion and appointment to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) with effect from 11. 1994, the date on which his junior namely, the 4th respondent was promoted with all consequential service benefits from that i.e 11. 1994. The writ petition is allowed to the extent mentioned above. 4. Thereafter, complaining that the respondent had failed to comply with the orders, despite demands, the petitioner moved Contempt Application No.375 of 1999. The petitioner’s contention is that through the petitioner had been promoted notionally, but he had not been paid the salary with effect from 11. 94, the date on which the junior had been promoted and thus the respondent is guilty of contempt. 5. The very same contention was raised in the contempt application. The learned Judge after going through the orders passed by the respondent dropped the contempt proceedings and was satisfied with the reason assigned by the respondent for not granting monetary benefits as the petitioner had not shouldered higher responsibility in the higher cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer. Thereafter the present writ petition has been filed. .6. The learned Judge after going through the orders passed by the respondent dropped the contempt proceedings and was satisfied with the reason assigned by the respondent for not granting monetary benefits as the petitioner had not shouldered higher responsibility in the higher cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer. Thereafter the present writ petition has been filed. .6. The petitioner has been promoted with retrospective effect from 11. 1994 without monetary benefits. This portion of the order by which the respondent has denied the monetary benefits is being challenged in this writ petition. 7. Mr.Sadasharam, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh and another v. Syed Naseem Zahir and others, AIR 1993 SC 1165 and Union of India etc v. K.V. Janakiraman etc, AIR 1991 SC 2010 besides placing realigns on th decision of the Karnataka High Court in A. Venkataramanan Ready and others v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and others, 1999 Lab I.C.289. 8. According to the learned counsel, all the three decisions support the petitioner’s contention and there is no justification at all to deny the monetary benefits eventhough he had been promoted with retrospective effect. It is conceded that the petitioner was not discharging the functions nor he had worked during that period in the promoted post. All that Mr.Sadacharm points out is that, despite the petitioner not working in the promoted post rule of “no work, no pay” will not apply and in this respect, the learned counsel relied upon the said pronouncements. 9. The attention of this Court is drawn to the latter pronouncement of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. O.P.Gupta and others, 1996 (7) SCC 533 . Their Lordships of the Supreme Court after considering the entire case law in Paluru Ramakrishnaiah v. Union of India, 1989 (2) SCC 541 ; Virender Kumar G.M. N.Rlys. 9. The attention of this Court is drawn to the latter pronouncement of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. O.P.Gupta and others, 1996 (7) SCC 533 . Their Lordships of the Supreme Court after considering the entire case law in Paluru Ramakrishnaiah v. Union of India, 1989 (2) SCC 541 ; Virender Kumar G.M. N.Rlys. v. Avinash Chandra Chadha, 1990 (3) SCC 472 , as well as Union of India v. K.V.JanakiRaman, 1991 (4) SCC 109 , had occasion to consider identical situation and held thus: This Court in Paluru Ramakrishnaiah v. Union of India, 1989 (2) SCC 541 , SCR 108; SCC Page 556, Para 19, considered the direction issued by the High Court and upheld that there has to be “no pay for no work” i.e a person will not be entitled to any pay and allowance during the period for which he did not perform the duties of higher post, although after due consideration, he was given a proper place in the gradation list having been deemed to be promoted to the higher post with effect from the date his junior was promoted. He will be entitled only to step up the scale of pay retrospectively from the deemed date but is not entitled to the payment of arrears of the salary. The same ratio was reiterated in Virener Kumar G.M.N.Rlys v. Avinash Chandra Chadha, 1990 (3) SCC 472 , SCC P.482 Para 16. It is true, as pointed out by Shri Hooda, that in Union of India v. K.V. Janakiraman, 1991 (4) SCC 109 , this Court held that where the incumbent was willing to work, but was denied the opportunity to work for no fault of his, he is entitled to the payment of arrears of salary. That is a case where the respondent was kept under suspension during departmental enquiry and sealed cover procedure was adopted because of the pendency of the criminal case. When the criminal case ended in his favour and departmental proceedings were held to be invalid, this Court held that he was entitled to the arrears of salary. That ratio has no application are to be considered in accordance with the rules and the promotions are to be made pursuant thereto. When the criminal case ended in his favour and departmental proceedings were held to be invalid, this Court held that he was entitled to the arrears of salary. That ratio has no application are to be considered in accordance with the rules and the promotions are to be made pursuant thereto. In these appeals unless the seniority list is prepared and finalised and promotions are made in accordance with the Rules on the basis of the above seniority list, the question of entitlement to work in the promotional posts does not arise. Consequently, the payment of arrears of salary does not arise since, admittedly the respondents had not worked during that period. The High Court, was therefore, wholly illegal in directing payment of arrears of salary. The order of the High Court accordingly is quas hed.” 10. In the light of this pronouncement of the Apex Court, this Court is not in a position to sustain the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner. That apart such a contention was raised in the contempt proceedings and the learned Judge while disposing of the contempt application also declined to countenace the same. 11. Following the decision of the Apex Court in State of Harayana and others v. O.P. Gupta and others, 1996 (7) SCC 533 , the writ petition fails and it is dismissed.