Judgment 1. Heard the Parties 2. On behaif of petitioner it has been submitted that Rule 58 of Bihar Service Code, Rule 74 of Bihar Financial Rules and Circular of the State Government dated 4.4.1985 should not be made applicable in the case of the petitioner to deny him monetary benefits of retrospective promotion. Petitioner has challenged such a decision of the concerned authorities as contained in Annexure-1 dated 17th May, 1997. 3. The law in the matter is well settled that if a person was entitled for promotion from a due date and is wrongly denied such promotion for some time and subsequently he is promoted with effect from due date then monetary benefits cannot be denied to such promoted persons on the ground that he never worked on the promoted post from due date. In such a situation Courts have always held that the employee concerned was unable to work on promoted post for no fault of his and therefore he is entitled for being paid monetary benefits from due date i.e. retrospective date. The concept is to remedy the wrong done to an employee with full benefits of pay from due date. 4. In the present case, Annexure-1 makes the relevant facts clear that petitioner had admittedly retired from service on 31.1.1990, thereafter Joint Cadre Rules of Assistants of Secretariat and attached offices of the year 1992 was framed. Under Rule 17 of the said Rules the vacancies were sought to be filled up in the year 1996 w.e.i. date the vacancies had occurred. In that process retired employees like petitioner were also given notional promotion because the vacancies were in existence from 30th August, 1988 when the petitioner and some others were in service. In such facts it cannot be held that petitioner was entitled to promotion w.e.f. 30th August, 1988 before he superannuated on 31.1.90. It is not a case where his promotion was withheld while granting promotion to others or to his juniors or that he had been wrongly superannuated and such wrong was subsequently corrected. In such a situation where petitioner was not entitled for promotion from any due date the authorities have acted in accordance with the concerned rules of the Service Code and the Financial Rules in granting only notional promotion to the petitioner. In such a situation where petitioner was not entitled for promotion from any due date the authorities have acted in accordance with the concerned rules of the Service Code and the Financial Rules in granting only notional promotion to the petitioner. He cannot be allowed monetary benefits on the basis of such promotion because he was not prevented by any wrong act of the respondents from joining the higher posts in due date. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.