Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-The grievance, which has been raised by the writ petitioner, is that once he has been promoted with retrospective effect vide order Exhibits 8, 9 & 10 as Superintending Engineer/Additional Chief Engineer/Chief Engineer from the year of vacancy to which he was entitled for in view of his exoneration in the departmental inquiries initiated against him, he is entitled for actual pay all allowance and not of notional fixation in which he has been fixed by the Government. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined service as Senior Overseer in the Irrigation Department on 1st July, 1954 and was appointed as Assistant Engineer in November, 1954 and as Executive Engineer in September, 1959, as Superintending Engineer in February, 1973, as Additional Chief Engineer in March, 1986, as Chief Engineer in February, 1989 & retired from service as Chief Engineer (Civil) on 30.06.1991. He was served with first charge-sheet under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules 1958 ("CCA Rules") on 31st December, 1970 in which he was exonerated vide order dated 28th December, 1983 (Exhibit 1A). The second charge-sheet (Exhibit) was served upon him on 1st of February, 1972 in which he was exonerated vide order dated 28th June, 1988 (Exhibit 2A). Third Charge-sheet was served upon him on 15th January, 1976 in which he was exonerated vide order dated 9th June, 1983 (Exhibit 3A) and the fourth charge-sheet was served upon him on 7th April, 1982 in which he was exonerated vide order dated 14th May, 1986 (Exhibit 4A). 3. Third Charge-sheet was served upon him on 15th January, 1976 in which he was exonerated vide order dated 9th June, 1983 (Exhibit 3A) and the fourth charge-sheet was served upon him on 7th April, 1982 in which he was exonerated vide order dated 14th May, 1986 (Exhibit 4A). 3. While the inquiry proceedings were pending, the candidature of the petitioner was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion for the post of Superintending Engineer, Additional Chief Engineer and Chief Engineer, but the result was kept in sealed cover and after conclusion of inquiry in which he was completely exonerated, his candidature was reviewed by the DPC and vide order dated 12th December, 1988 (Exhibit 5) he was promoted as Superintending Engineer against the year of 1971 and as Additional Chief Engineer vide order dated 12th December, 1988 (Exhibit 6) against the year of 1983-84 and as Chief Engineer (Civil) vide order dated 30th January, 1988 (Exhibit 7) against the quota of 1988-89 but while giving him retrospective promotion against the year of vacancy to which he was entitled for only notional fixation was made, whereas according to the petitioner he was deprived from working on the promotional post and because of pendency of inquiry and on complete exoneration he was entitled for actual pay and allowances and not the notional fixation as ordered by the respondent vide order dated 3rd November, 1989 (Exhibit 8). 4. The petitioner raised his grievance for payment of actual pay and allowances for the period in question, which was rejected by the Government vide order dated 12th June, 1981 (Exhibit 12). Hence, this petition. 5. The only contention raised by Shri R.C. Joshi, Counsel for the petitioner is that the principle of no work no pay will not be applicable in the facts of present case because the petitioner was always willing to work, but he was kept away from discharging his duties of the promotional post by the respondent by serving him a charge sheet, which was found to be false and was exonerated and still he has been deprived from his dues. He faced the agony of false inquiries and simultaneously has been deprived to enjoy the status of promotional post and after getting final exoneration, he has been deprived of his pay and allowances also to which he was otherwise entitled for and in support of his submission, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the Judgment of apex Court reported in Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman, 1991 (4) SCC 109 . 6. The respondent has filed reply to the writ petition and has submitted that for the delinquency committed by the petitioner, he was served with the charge-sheet on four occasions, but because of lack of supporting evidence, the charge could not be finally proved against him as a consequence thereof petitioners exoneration. But, it is not the case where he has imputed bias against anyone for initiating departmental inquiry against him and after the petitioner was exonerated in the departmental inquiry without any further delay after holding a review DPC, his promotion to which he was entitled for, has been restored and notional fixations were made by passing order dated 3rd November, 1989 (Exhibit 8) and there is no financial loss to the petitioner after granting notional fixation. 7. Mr. Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate, Counsel for respondent-State submitted that in view of Rules 24A (11-A) & (11-B) of the Rajasthan Service of Engineers & Research Officers (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1954, the petitioner on his promotion against earlier vacancy is only entitled for notional fixation and Rule does not permit to grant actual arrears of pay and allowances. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the parties and also perused the material available on record. 9. The undisputed facts, which are available on record, are that the four different charge-sheets were served upon the petitioner and in all the four inquiries he was exonerated, but because of its pendency he was given ad-hoc promotion and his candidature was considered by the DPC for his promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, Additional Chief Engineer and Chief Engineer, but the candidature was kept in sealed cover and immediately after he was exonerated in the departmental inquiry after holding review DPC, his promotions as Superintending Engineer, Additional Chief Engineer and Chief Engineer, were restored back against the year of vacancy relating to which he was entitled for vide order Exhibits 5, 6 & 7. 10. 10. Whenever an employee faces a departmental inquiry that has never been considered as impediment to deprive one from his consideration for promotion, but the candidature is kept in sealed cover and which is reviewed by the DPC after taking note of the result of departmental inquiry initiated against him. Since in the present case inquiry one after the other was initiated against him, sealed cover could not be reviewed by the DPC and after there is a final exoneration in all the four departmental inquiries without any further delay his promotions were restored back. To meet out such contingencies/situations, provision has been made in Sub-rule (11-A) & (11-B) of Rule 24-A of the Rules of 1954 that if promotions are made for earlier year vacancies, the DPC shall consider candidature of persons who would have been eligible in the year to which vacancies relate, so also taking note of the eligibility, record of service, rule in operation irrespective of the year in which the meeting of the DPC is held and besides considering the fact of having service/experience of the promotional post without actually performing the duties of the post to which he would have been promoted is recognized by legal fiction, but the restriction has been inserted that pay of a person shall be fixed on notional basis, but shall not be entitled for arrears of pay. The relevant Sub-rule (11-A) of Rule 24A of the Rules of 1954 is reproduced as under:- "(11-A). If in any subsequent year, after promulgation of these rules, vacancies relating to any earlier year are determined under Sub-rule (2) of rule relating to determination of vacancies which were required to be filled by promotion, the Departmental Promotion Committee shall consider the cases of all such persons who would have been eligible in the year to which the vacancies relate irrespective of the year in which the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee is held and such promotions shall be governed by the criteria and procedure for promotion as was applicable in the particular year to which the vacancies relates, and the service/experience of an incumbent who has been so promoted, for promotion to higher post for any period during which he has not actually performed the duties of the post to which he would have been promoted, shall be counted. The pay of a person who has been so promoted shall be re-fixed at the pay which he would have derived at the time of his promotion but no arrears of pay shall be allowed to him". 11. The petitioner has not challenged the validity of rule as referred to supra and I find no illegality in the decision taken by the respondent in granting him benefit of notional fixation only and not the payment of arrears of pay by passing order dated 011.1989 (Exhibit 8). The reliance has been placed by Counsel for the petitioner in the case of K.V. Jankiraman (Supra), wherein there was no such express rule which denies arrears of pay to the employee for the period during which he has not worked on the promotional post, whereas in the present case there is a specific Rules 24A (11-A) & (11-B) which denies the payment of actual arrears of pay to the employee during the period where he was not worked on the promotional post. In such circumstances, the Judgment referred to supra will be of no assistance to the petitioner in the present case. 12. Consequently, I find no force in the writ petition, the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.