JUDGMENT S.S. SARON, J. 1. The petitioner in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 9.3.2004 (Annexure-P.2) to the extent that condition No. 5 has been imposed whereby the benefit of retrospective promotion w.e.f. 11.1.1985 has been made available for the purpose of pay fixation only by denying him the payment of salary. 2. The petitioner joined service as a T-Mate and on 9.9.1991, he was appointed as Oiler and Greaser. Thereafter, he was promoted as Plaint attendant w.e.f. 11.1.1985. On attaining the age of superannuation he retired on 30.9.2000. After retirement, he was given promotion on 12.6.2002 from the date his juniors were promoted i.e. 11.1.1985. The promotion order was modified on 9.3.2004 (Annexure-P.2) and condition No. 5 was imposed in terms of which the petitioner was held entitled to the benefit of retrospective promotion from 11.1.1985 for the purpose of pay fixation only and the payment of salary as a consequence of pay fixation was denied. The same, as already noticed, is assailed in this petition. 3. Written statement has been filed by respondents No. 1 and 2. It is stated that since the petitioner has not worked on the promotion post prior to his promotion, therefore, he is not entitled for the salary of the higher post for the period he had not actually worked on the principle of ‘no work no pay’. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of salary from the deemed date of his promotion as Plant Attendant as he was prevented from working on the said post for no fault of his. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter. It is admitted position that the petitioner has been given promotion from a retrospective date. However, the same has been given for the purpose of pay fixation only and payment of salary as a consequence of pay fixation on the promoted post has been denied. A perusal of the written statement filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 does not any where show that it is on account of any default on the part of the petitioner that he was not promoted on the higher post w.e.f. the due date. A perusal of the written statement filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 does not any where show that it is on account of any default on the part of the petitioner that he was not promoted on the higher post w.e.f. the due date. A Division Bench of this Court in Ram Pal v. State of Haryana, 2003 (3) RSJ 249 held that the executive once satisfied that a civil servant was entitled to promotion with retrospective effect cannot deprive him the benefit of salary accruing on account of such promotion from an earlier date without assigning valid, cogent and specific reasons. The order depriving the petitioner therein of his right to claim back wages was held to be unsustainable and quashed. Reliance was placed on an earlier Division Bench decision of this Court in Vidya Parkash Harnal v. State of Haryana, 1995 (3) SCT 786, wherein it has been held that the Executive/State Government are to be bound and governed by the rule of law and if an employee is not promoted at his rightful place when he is entitled to and becomes eligible in accordance with the rules, the Court cannot ignore the magnitude of sufferings and pains on account of deprivation of the monetary benefits to him. In Union of India v. K.V. Janakiraman, AIR 1991 SC 2010, it was observed as follows :- “The normal rule of “no work no pay” is not applicable to cases such as the present one where the employee although he is willing to work is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his. This is not a case where the employee remains away from work for his own reasons, although the work is offered to him.” In view of the above there being no material on record to show that it is on account of any default of the petitioner that he was not promoted from the due date, we are of the view that he was kept away from working on the higher post for no fault of his. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be allowed. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be allowed. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and condition No. 5 of the order, dated 9.3.2004 (Annexure-P.2) whereby the retrospective promotion from 11.1.1985 has been held to be available for the pay fixation only by denying the benefit of salary as a consequence of pay fixation is quashed and the petitioner is held entitled to all consequential benefits from the deemed date of his actual promotion i.e. 11.1.1985 and he is also held entitled to the release of his pension, leave encashment and other retiral benefits as a consequence of his being promoted on the higher post with effect from 11.1.1985. No costs.