JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. — The petitioner who is working as a Senior Assistant in this Court has filed this writ application praying for a direction to the opposite parties for fixation of his pay in the promotional post and for release of the salary compo¬nent with effect from 24.9.2001. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Junior Assistant and joined in the post on 9.11.1989. While working as such, steps were taken for filling up the vacancies in the cadre of translator by way of promotion from amongst the existing Junior Assistants. At the relevant time, there were three vacancies of Translators. Out of the three posts, as per the roster point, one was meant for Scheduled Caste, one for general and one for Scheduled Tribe. Since there was no Scheduled Tribe candidate available, a Scheduled Caste person was given promotion by way of exchange by taking help of Section 6 of Orissa Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1975. Accordingly, one A.K. Choudhury from the general category and Bikram Sethy and Santosh Kumar Sethy from the category of Scheduled Caste were given promotion. As per the gradation list of Junior Assistant, the position of the petitioner was at serial No.3. The Junior Assistant who was placed at serial No.1 applied for voluntary retirement for which his case was not taken into consideration. However, the petition¬er could not get promotion because of exchange of Scheduled Caste candidate and two of his juniors were given promotion. Challeng¬ing the aforesaid order of promotion, the petitioner made a representation before the authority, which was rejected on 5.2.1998. It was urged in the said representation that Section 6 of the O.R.V. Act prohibits exchange of vacancies in Class III and Class IV services and Section 7 also prohibits carry forward of reservation and de-reservation of vacancies in Class III and Class IV services. Even after rejection, the case of the peti¬tioner was considered and he was given promotion to the post of Translator with effect from 16.10.1998 vide order dated 16.10.1998 against a vacancy which occurred subsequently. Therea¬fter, the petitioner was absorbed as Senior Assistant in the scale of pay of Rs.1400/-2300/- by order-dated 30.3.1999. Even after rejection, the case of the peti¬tioner was considered and he was given promotion to the post of Translator with effect from 16.10.1998 vide order dated 16.10.1998 against a vacancy which occurred subsequently. Therea¬fter, the petitioner was absorbed as Senior Assistant in the scale of pay of Rs.1400/-2300/- by order-dated 30.3.1999. After the petitioner was given promotion to the post of Translator with effect from 16.10.1998, he made a representation before the Hon’¬ble the Chief Justice on the very same ground. Consequent upon the order passed on the memorial by the Hon’ble the Chief Jus¬tice, the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Translator and Senior Assistant were antedated to 19.3.1997 and 5.8.1998 respectively vide order-dated 24.9.2001. Thereafter, a revised gradation list was published pursuant to the decision of the Appeal Committee refixing inter-se-seniority among the candidates in the cadre of Senior Assistant in which the name of the peti¬tioner finds place at serial No.129 whereas the names of Bikram Sethy and Santosh Sethy find place at serial Nos.133 and 134 respectively. The further case of the petitioner is that though his promotion to the post of Translator and Senior Assistant were antedated to 19.3.97 and 5.8.98 respectively, the scale of pay attached to the post was not fixed and salary component attached to the post also not released despite the representation made before the opposite party No.1. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties. It is stated in the counter affidavit that under the Orissa High Court Recruitment of Staff Rules, the Translators have got no further scope of promotion and, there¬fore, as a matter of practice as then was the Junior Assistants were promoted to the post of Translator and then absorbed against the post of Senior Assistant depending upon the vacancy position in order to provide them the promotional opportunities. This adjustment was done as the post of Translator as well as the Senior Assistant carry the equal pay. After introduction of O.R.S.P. Rules, 1998 with effect from 1.1.1996, the scale of pay of both the posts became Rs.4, 750-7500/- from Rs.1400-2300/-. It is admitted in the counter affidavit that Bikram Sethy and San¬tosh Kumar Sethy were junior to the petitioner in the cadre of Junior Assistant. After introduction of O.R.S.P. Rules, 1998 with effect from 1.1.1996, the scale of pay of both the posts became Rs.4, 750-7500/- from Rs.1400-2300/-. It is admitted in the counter affidavit that Bikram Sethy and San¬tosh Kumar Sethy were junior to the petitioner in the cadre of Junior Assistant. In the year 1997 when three vacancies in the cadre of Translator fell vacant, steps were taken to fill up those vacancies falling under roster point Nos.16, 17 and 18. In the gradation list of Junior Assistant, the position for the petitioner was at serial No.3. Therefore, to fill up the general vacancy falling under roster point No.17, the case of the peti¬tioner was taken up for consideration along with Smt. P. Mohapa¬tra, who was then under suspension, Shri A.K. Choudhury and Shri Chandramani Behera whose names were also placed at serial Nos.1, 2 and 4 respectively in the gradation list. From out of the general candidates, Shri A. K. Choudhury being senior to the petitioner was promoted. In order to fill up reserve vacancies under roster point Nos.16 (Scheduled Caste) and 18 (Scheduled Tribe), the cases of Bikram Sethy, Santosh Kumar Sethy, Miss. G. Mukhi and Miss. Namita Behera belonging to the Scheduled Caste community were taken into consideration as their respective position in the gradation list of Junior Assistant were 28, 29, 30 and 31 respectively. Shri Bikram Sethy being senior most among the Scheduled Caste candidates was given promotion. As there was no Scheduled Tribe candidate available in the cadre of Junior Assistant, Shri Santosh Kumar Sethy, who was next below Bikram Sethy was given promotion against the Scheduled Tribe post under the principle of exchange of reservation between the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as per Section 6 of the O.R.V. Act, 1975. In the year 1998, five vacancies occurred in the cadre of Translator and while promoting the petitioner along with others to the post of Translator by order dated 13.10.1998, a clarifica¬tion was sought for from the Tribal Welfare Department as to whether Sections 6 and 7 of the O.R.V. Act, 1975 are applicable to the vacancies for promotion in respect of Class III and Class IV services. After receipt of the clarification to the effect that Section 6 of the O.R.V. Act, 1975 has no application to Class III and Class IV posts because of the amendment in the year 1991, the representation of the petitioner was reconsidered and he was given promotion to the post of Translator with effect from 19.3.1997. The only stand taken in the counter affidavit for denial of the arrear differential pay is that the petitioner never worked as Translator from 19.3.1997 to 15.10.1998 when he was given promotion to the post of Translator on the basis of the principle of “no work no pay”. So far as fixation of pay is concerned, it is stated in the counter affidavit that his pay in the cadre of Translator has to be fixed from the date of his promotion i.e. with effect from 19.3.1997 the date on which his junior Shri Santosh Kumar Sethy joined the post of Translator. 4. On consideration of the averment made in the writ application as well as in the counter affidavit, the only question that requires to be determined as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the differential pay for the period from 19.3.1997 to 15.10.1998 or not. In the counter affidavit, the opposite parties having admitted that the petitioner's pay is to be fixed in the cadre of Translator with effect from 19.3.1997, there is no dispute in that point. Though a stand has been taken in the coun¬ter affidavit that the petitioner never worked as Translator from 19.3.1997 to 15.3.1998 and is not entitled to differential salary for the said period on the basis of principle of “no work no pay”, it is very clear from the averment made in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was not given promotion when his juniors were promoted and he was given promotion to the post of Translator at a later stage and the fault lies with the opposite parties. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India -v- K.V. Janikiraman reported in AIR 1991 S.C. 2010 has held that normal rule of “no work no pay” is not applicable to such case where the employee although he is willing to work is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India -v- K.V. Janikiraman reported in AIR 1991 S.C. 2010 has held that normal rule of “no work no pay” is not applicable to such case where the employee although he is willing to work is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his. It is a clear case where the authority did not give promotion to the petitioner to the post of Translator when it became due and promoted one of his juniors taking help of Section 6 of the O.R.V. Act and subsequently after obtaining clarification from the State Government promoted the petitioner to the post of Translator with effect from 19.3.1997. Therefore, no fault can be found with the petitioner for not working in the post of Translator from 19.3.1997 on promotion. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court as observed above, the petitioner is entitled to differential salary for the afore¬said period. 5. We, therefore, allow the writ application by directing the opposite parties to fix the scale of pay of the petitioner with effect from 19.3.1997 and pay the differential salary in the cadre of Translator from 19.3.1997 till he joined in the post of Translator. N. PRUSTY, J. I agree. Application allowed.