JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This appeal is barred by 38 days which is accompanied with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. We are satisfied that the sufficient cause has not been shown which could have prevented the appellants from 1. filing the appeal within limitation. 3. Having examined the order under appeal we find no merit in this appeal. 4. The respondent-petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer and he has required to function as Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 28.1.1988 and was continuously discharging the duties of Assistant Engineer. By order dated 10.4.1995 the petitioner-respondent along with some other Junior Engineers vas appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer purely on stop gap arrangement basis for a period of six months or RPSC selected candidates are made available, whichever is earlier. The said orders were cancelled by order dated 24.6.1995 which led to filing of the writ petition out of which this appeal arises. 5. During the pendency of the writ petition by order dated 5.7.1999 the present appellants granted relief to the petitioner-respondent by appointing 15 him to the post of Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 1981-82. In view of that reversion order dated 24.6.1995, which was subject matter of challenge in the writ petition, became ineffective. 6. The petitioner-respondent has also challenged the show cause notice initiating a departmental enquiry against him. Since during the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner-respondent was exonerated in the pending enquiry, therefore, nothing survives in that regard also. 7. However, vide order dated 5.7.1999 the petitioner was given appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer by assigning him the year - 981-82, but it was directed that the petitioner shall be entitled for notional benefits only as a result of his promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from that date and shall riot be entitled to any arrears. 8. In this connection, the learned Single Judge has found that since 1988 the petitioner was initially promoted, in the first instance, as Assistant Engineer on adhoc basis and he has continued on the same post discharging the function of Assistant Engineer. There fore, there is no justification for denying him benefit of actual remuneration of the post which ?. 8. In this connection, the learned Single Judge has found that since 1988 the petitioner was initially promoted, in the first instance, as Assistant Engineer on adhoc basis and he has continued on the same post discharging the function of Assistant Engineer. There fore, there is no justification for denying him benefit of actual remuneration of the post which ?. has been entitled to hold since 1981-82 and to that extent the relief has been granted by the learned Single Judge that petitioner shall be entitled for the salary which was applicable for the post of Assistant Engineer from September, 1988. 9. In this conclusion, no error can be found, as when the petitioner-respondent has actually discharged the function of Assistant Engineer on being promoted, even though on adhoc basis, that post he continued to hold until the orders passed in his favour giving him 40 appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer. The benefit for the period for which he actually discharged the function of the post, he cannot be denied fixation of notional pay on the principle of no work no pay' or on any ground. He would be otherwise entitled to the regular pay-scale of the post of Assistant Engineer for that period on the principles of 'equal pay for equal 45 work'. 10. In view of the aforesaid the application as well as appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******