ORDER This writ petition on behalf of the sole petitioner has been filed for setting aside the part of the order dated 16.6.2000, copy whereof has been enclosed as Annexure-20, whereby while granting notional promotion to the petitioner he has been denied arrear salary for the period 28.12.82 to 24.12.86. 2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as watchman in the Food Corporation of India on 8.8.73. His services were regularized on 16.2.77 on probation. He was confirmed on 23.2.78. A dispute arose after as many as 20 persons Managing Director, Food 2002(3) BBCJ n of India junior to him were promoted on class III posts on 28.12.82. The petitioner filed representation on 5.1.83. Upon consideration of the matter on 29.3.84, 11 of them were reverted to the original post. The petitioner again made representation on 5.7.86 for his promotion from 28.12.82. Finally, by order referred to above dated 16.6.2000, his representation was allowed and he was promoted on class III post with effect from due date i.e. 28.12.82. The order however, stated that though the petitioner will be entitled to the benefit of seniority on the post of Assistant Grade III, above his juniors, he would not be entitled to salary of the post for the intervening period i.e. from 28.12.82 to 24.12.86. The promotion, in fact was described as 'notional'. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that having been allowed his due promotion from due date, the petitioner cannot be denied salary of the higher post. He submitted that where promotion is denied on account of a wrong decision of the appointing authority the consequential benefits of promotion subsequently granted to him cannot be denied. In support of the contention reliance was placed on Dr. Paras Nath Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, 1990(2) PLJR 248. Counsel for the Corporation submitted that as the petitioner did not hold the post of Assistant Grade III during the period 28.12.82 to 24.12.86, he cannot be allowed salary to that post. He pointed out that it is not a cash where on account of some arbitrary and wrong action of the authorities the petitioner was denied promotion. The fact is that in 1982 the petitioner was asked to submit matriculation certificate which he did not produce and on that ground he was not promoted on the post of Assistant. 4. After hearing counsel for the parties. The fact is that in 1982 the petitioner was asked to submit matriculation certificate which he did not produce and on that ground he was not promoted on the post of Assistant. 4. After hearing counsel for the parties. I am of the view that the grievance of the petitioner is covered by the decision in the case of Dr. Paras Nath Prasad (supra) and the petitioner thus has to be granted relief. The Division Bench in the above said cash has held in no uncertain terms, relying or various decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts, that where a person is entitled to promotion but not promoted on time and subsequently promotion is allowed to him from the due date, he is entitled to arrear of salary. The submission of the counsel for the Corporation that the petitioner did not produce matriculation certificate and had he done so, he could have been promoted and therefore denial of promotion in the instant case may not be attributed solely to the authorities, seems to be attractive but cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the petitioner has been allowed promotion from the due date i.e. 28.12.82 itself. On the ground that the petitioner did not produce the matriculation certificate, it was open to the Corporation to promote him from a subsequent date on production of the matriculation certificate or otherwise being satisfied that the petitioner held requisite qualification, but having decided to make the promotion effective from 28.12.82 in all other respects including grant of seniority benefits etc., they cannot deny him consequential salary of the post due from 28.12.82. 5. In the result, the offending part of the order dated 16.6.2000 denying arrear salary for the period from 28.12.82 to 24.12.86 is set and the petitioner ;s held entitled to the same. 6. The petition stands allowed accordingly.