JUDGEMENT Mr. Vijay Pal Singh, Member (A):- The applicants herein have prayed for the following reliefs:- (i) That the respondents be directed to implement the directions contained in Annexure P-6 and P-4 for the purpose of monetary benefits accruing after the finalization of seniority and confirmation of late Sh. Ramesh Chander Sharma predecessor-in-interest of the applicants, (ii) That respondents be directed to amend the pay fixation orders Annexures P-18 and P-19 in the spirit of Annexure P-6. (iii) That the respondents be directed to sanction the difference on account of group insurance to the extent of Rs. 60,000/- out of Rs. 80,000/- admissible for Class-I, employee with respect to Annexure P-6. (iv) The respondents be directed to implement the directions contained in Annexure P-2 qua the difference in pay or the period 26.4.1962 to 1.7.1964. (v) That the respondents be directed to pay the salary for the period from 21.7.1977 to 24.2.1981 as detailed in Annexure P-21. (vi) That the respondents be directed to disburse the pension amount in accordance to the spirit of Annexure P-6 and the minimum amount at the present rate, i.e. Rs. 375/- be declared null and void. 2. In brief the case of the respondents as made out in this original application is that applicants are the legal heirs of late Shri Ramesh Chander Sharma, who while serving as Supdt. Probation Hostel, in the respondent department died on 25.5.1985. Shri Ramesh Chander Sharma had joined as Assistant Welfare Officer-Cum-Assistant Public Relation Officer in the Community development Department in the pay scale of Rs. 150-10-300 in the year 1959. Subsequently, he was selection as Superintendent Bal Asharm in Welfare department through competitive examination held by the department and was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 250-20-450 w.e.f. 22.2.1960. On 29.8.1960, one Shri B.S. Goel was appointed as Superintendent Probation Hostel in Welfare Department in the pay scale of Rs. 250-20-450. The posts of Superintendent Bal Ashram and Supdt. probation Hostel are regulated by the same Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1965. Copy if seniority lists of the year 1961 is annexed as Annexure P-1. On 10.4.1962, Bal Ashram Tuti Knandi was transferred to voluntary organization and as a result the post of Supdt. of Bal Ashram ceased to exist and late Shri Sharma was sent back to Community Development department. Copy if seniority lists of the year 1961 is annexed as Annexure P-1. On 10.4.1962, Bal Ashram Tuti Knandi was transferred to voluntary organization and as a result the post of Supdt. of Bal Ashram ceased to exist and late Shri Sharma was sent back to Community Development department. Being aggrieved, he made representation and ultimately he was appointed as officiating Superintendent Probation Hostel in the Welfare department vide order dated 21.5.1964 Annexure P-2. In the year 1971, the respondents while ignoring the claim of late Shri Sharma promoted his junior Shri B.S. Goel as District Welfare Officer Gazetted Class-ll in the pay scale of Rs. 250-25-500 vide order dated 5;" June, 1971 Annexure P-3 and also confirmed him as Class II officer vide order dated 29.3.1975. That late Shri Sharma made representations against the promotion and also confirmation of Shri B.S. Goel. In the year 1977, the respondents had abolished the post of Supdt. Probation Hostel and equated this post to the post of Supdt. Child Home and late Shri Sharma was forced to join the same, failing which, he would got reversion. On 20.12.1077, late Shri Sharma joined on this post without prejudice to his rights and represented against his new assignment also. The respondents ultimately confirmed him vide order dated 23.3.1981 Annexure P-4 retrospectively w.e.f. 2nd February, 1966 and vide order dated 21.2.1981, Annexure P-6 late Shri Ramesh Chander Sharma was given seniority over Shri B.S. Goel, Shri B.S. Goel assailed the order Annexure P-6 by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 57 of 1981 titled B.S. Goel Vrs. State of H.P. and another before Honble High Court of H.P. wherein the Honble Court on 11.5.1981 was pleased to order that, "the petitioner shall not be reverted from his present grade nor any other order prejudicial to his interest shall be passed during the pendency of this Writ Petition. If any promotion is made during the pendency of writ petition, that shall be subject to the result of this writ petition". The respondent State in their reply (copy whereof are at Annexures P-9 and P-10) filed in C.W.P. No. 57 of 1981, had explained the position of seniority of late Shri R.C. Sharma vis-a-vis Shri B.S. Goel. In the year, 1986, the aforesaid Writ Petition was transferred to this Tribunal and was registered as T.A. No. 387 of 1986. The respondent State in their reply (copy whereof are at Annexures P-9 and P-10) filed in C.W.P. No. 57 of 1981, had explained the position of seniority of late Shri R.C. Sharma vis-a-vis Shri B.S. Goel. In the year, 1986, the aforesaid Writ Petition was transferred to this Tribunal and was registered as T.A. No. 387 of 1986. During the pendency of this proceeding, the present applicants were given liberty to bring the fresh application, if needed (vide order dated 30.9.1991). The T.A. No. 387 of 1986 was finally dismissed vide order dated 28.10.1991 Annexure P-12. Thereafter, the respondents started the process of the settlement of the pending claims of the applicants. The applicants submitted representation dated 11.10.1991 Annexure P-16 to respondent No.2 for the earliest settlement of the claim with respect to anomaly of pay scales, group insurance, pension etc. The respondents vide Annexure P-17 dated 24.6.1992 has ordered to release the amount of Rs. 39,293/-as revised arrears due to revision to pay scale from 1.2.1968 and 1.1.1978, but contrary to the order Annexure P-17 the applicant has received Rs. 34,487/- on account of arrear on 8.2.1993 which were received under protest vide Annexure P-20. The applicants submitted detailed representation dated 25.2.1993, copy whereof is at annexure P-21, but the respondents had not replied as yet. It is further stated that the action of the respondents to create a pay anomaly between the post of Supdt. Probation Hostel and Probation Officer is illegal. The Finance department vide letter dated 21.7.1990 addressed to the Joint Secretary (Personnel) has clinches the issue in favour of applicants and the respondent has to indicate only that the post of Supdt. Probation Hostel in H.P. is under Welfare department and. the same post in Punjab is under the Jail department. After the seniority was revised vide Annexure A-6 dated 21.2.1981, late Shri R.C. Sharma was entitled to the post of grade Class-I, since his junior Shri B.S. Soel in 1981 was serving as Child Development Project Officer. Consequently, after the death of Shri R.C. Sharma the applicants are entitled to get all the monetary benefits accrued from the date of his confirmation as Supdt. Probation Hostel. It is also the case of the applicants that the respondents have sanctioned Rs. 20,000/- on account of Group Insurance to the legal heirs as against Rs. 80,000, so they are entitled to remaining amount of Rs. Probation Hostel. It is also the case of the applicants that the respondents have sanctioned Rs. 20,000/- on account of Group Insurance to the legal heirs as against Rs. 80,000, so they are entitled to remaining amount of Rs. 60,000/- as provided in the Group Insurance Scheme. It is further stated that the respondents have illegally withheld the pay of late Shri R.C. Sharma for the period from 31.7.1977 to 23.2.1981 and the decision of treating this period on leave/extraordinary leave is illegal and deserves to be quashed and treated as period spent on duty. The applicants are also entitled to get the difference in pay for the period from 26.4.1962 to 1.7.1964 as per order Annexure P-2. Hence, this original application. 3. The respondents have contested the claim of the applicants. In the reply filed by the respondents, material facts which are not admitted are that the period from 31.7.1977 to 23.2.1981 has been regularized by granting the leave of the kind due and leave salary for this period also stands released to Smt. Suman Sharma widow of late Shri Ramesh Chander on 29.10.1985. About the period from 26.4.1962 to 21.5.1964, it is stated by the respondents that Shri Ramesh Chander Sharma was appointed as Supdt. Bal Ashram Tuti Kandi w.e.f. 1960 by direct recruitment. Later on, Bal Ashram was transferred to non-Government agency, as a result of which, Shri Ramesh Chander had to be reverted to his present department namely Community Development department in April, 1962. He made representation against his reversion, and on reconsideration he was appointed as Superintendent Probation Hostel Solan w.e.f. 21.5.1964 and he joined as such on 20.6.64. It is further stated that the promotion aspect of Shri Ramesh Chander Sharma has been examined at Government level and keeping in view the principle of non-admissibility of monetary benefit on notional promotion and selection of Shri B.S. Goel to the post of District Welfare Officer (Gazetted) on selection basis as per D.P.C. held on 24.1.1968, it was decided not to review the earlier D.P.C. Even if, the D.P.C, would have been reviewed at that time Shri Ramesh Chander would have been promoted on notional basis and no monetary benefit would have accrued to him. It is averred that D.C.R.G. / pension and amount under Group Insurance Scheme has been paid according to the admissibility. The original application may be dismissed in the interest of justice. It is averred that D.C.R.G. / pension and amount under Group Insurance Scheme has been paid according to the admissibility. The original application may be dismissed in the interest of justice. 4. In the rejoinder, the applicants have reaffirmed the averments made by them in the original application and further stated that the replying respondents have taken a stand which is contrary to the reply (Annexure P-9 and P-10) filed by the respondents in case titled B.S. Goel Vrs. State of H.P. It is further stated that in view of Ministry of Finance letter dated 13.10.1972 under extra ordinary pension scheme the widow with children is entitled to minimum Rs. 750/- or 60% of the basis pay, however, in the present case the applicants were paid only at the rate of Rs. 375/- per months and thereafter at the rate of Rs. 160/- per month. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It is admitted position of the case that late Shri Ramesh Chander Sharma was confirmed on the post of Superintendent Probation Hostel w.e.f. 2.2.1966 vide order 23.3.1981 Annexure A-4 and he was assigned seniority over Shri B.S. Goel who was working as District Welfare Officer Gazetted Class-ll vide order dated 21.2.1981 Annexure P-6. Shri B.S. Goel assailed these orders Annexures P-4 and P-6 by filing a Civil Writ Petition No. 57 of 1981 titled B.S. Goel Vrs. State of H.P. and another alongwith CM.P. 250/81 before the Honble High Court and the Honble High Court was pleased to stay the implementation CWP was transferred to this Tribunal and was registered as TA No. 387 of 1986. During the pendency of this proceedings, the present applicants were given liberty to bring the fresh application, if needed by this Tribunal vide order dated 30.9.1991 Annexure P-47. Due to death of Shri B.S. Goel, the T.A. No. 387 of 1896 was dismissed vide order dated 28.10.1991 Annexure P-16 to respondent No.2 for the settlement of their pending claims at the earliest. The respondent vide Annexure P-17 dated 24.6.1992, has ordered to release the amount of Rs. 39,293/- as revised arrear, but the applicant received bank draft for Rs. 34,487/- on 8.2.1993 which was received under protest vide Annexure P-20. The applicants submitted representation dated 25.2.1993 Annexure P-20 to the respondents, but of no avail. 7. The respondent vide Annexure P-17 dated 24.6.1992, has ordered to release the amount of Rs. 39,293/- as revised arrear, but the applicant received bank draft for Rs. 34,487/- on 8.2.1993 which was received under protest vide Annexure P-20. The applicants submitted representation dated 25.2.1993 Annexure P-20 to the respondents, but of no avail. 7. In the reply, the respondents have stated that the promotion case of late Shri Ramesh Chander Sharma has been examined at Government level and keeping in view of the principle of non-admissibility of monetary benefits of notional promotion and selection of Shri. B.C. Goel to one post of District Welfare Officer (Gazetted) on selection basis as per the D.P.C. held on 21.2.1968, it was decided not to review the earlier D.P.C. Even if, the D.P.C. would have been reviewed at that time Late Shri Ramesh Chander Sharma would have been promoted on notional basis and no monetary benefit would have accrued to him. From the reply of the respondents, it is evident that respondents have not implemented the order of seniority Annexure P-6 only on the contention that on notional promotion, no monetary benefit could be granted. 8. The learned counsel for the applicants has argued that late Shri R.C. Sharma has been made to suffer on account of lapses on the part of respondents for not preparing the correct seniority list in time. For no fault on his part, he has been illegally denied his right of promotion from the date when his junior Shri B.S. Goel was promoted to the post of District Welfare Officer Class-I (Gazetted) and further argued that monetary benefit cannot be denied even in the case of notional promotion. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on following decided cases: In Vasant Rao Roman Vrs. Union of India and others 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 324 there was shortage of literate shunters, appellant being literate, deputed for table work and, therefore, for administrative reasons he could not complete requisite number of firing kilometers and as such for no fault on his part, his juniors had been promoted as shunters and driver ignoring his claim for promotion. The Honble Apex Court has held that his claim for promotion over his juniors and for arrears of emoluments to the promotion post to be allowed. In Bir Singh Kadian Vrs. State of Haryana 1994 (3) SCTP. The Honble Apex Court has held that his claim for promotion over his juniors and for arrears of emoluments to the promotion post to be allowed. In Bir Singh Kadian Vrs. State of Haryana 1994 (3) SCTP. 423, the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that if a person is not promoted at his rightful place and date, if amount to not allowing a person to work on the higher post. Principle of "no work no pay" will not be applicable. Where ever a person is found entitled to the grant of retrospective promotion, he is entitled to the refixation of his pay, grant of arrears of salary and refixation of his pension and gratuity, if any. If a person retires during pendency of litigation and later on his claim for promotion from retrospective date is allowed, it is held that he will not be entitled to any benefits from retrospective date, it will add insult to his injury as all his fight and wait will be in fain. In Om Parkash Vrs. Union of India All India Services Law Journal Volume 3, 1987 CAT 507 the applicant was given retrospective benefit of promotion creating supernumery post. Only fixation of pay allowed and arrears of pay denied on the ground that he did not actual work. The Division Bench of CAT has observed that the legal-fiction would, therefore, had to be extended so as to take the situation to its logical conclusion that the applicant would be deemed to have worked against the post from the date he was due for promotion. There is no room for contending that the pay of higher post cannot be paid to the applicant for. the duration he actually did work on that post. In S.R. Vishisht Vrs. State of H.P. and Another (O.A. No. 583/95 decided on may, 22,2001), the applicant had been promoted to different posts in higher scale but on notional basis and was not allowed arrears as he had not worked on these posts. The Division Bench of this Tribunal has observed that the applicant was deprived on the higher post and scales for no fault of his and directed the respondents to fix the pay of the applicant and allow the arrears of different posts and scales in which the applicant has been promoted on notional post for the period such notional promotion has been made. 9. In the present case, late Shri Ramesh Chander Sharma has been given seniority vide Annexure P-6 dated 21.2.1981 over Shri B.S. Goel who was working as District Welfare Officer Class-II (Gazetted). Admittedly, Shri. B.S. Goel enjoyed the benefits of higher post even after 21.2.1981 whereas late Shri R.C. Sharma had to suffer on account of non finalization of seniority in time and even after assigning him due seniority vide annexure A-6, he was made to suffer by no holding the review D.P.C. on the ground that on notional promotion, no monetary benefits could be granted. Thus, late Shri R.C. Sharma was deprived of higher post and scale for no fault of his. Thus, case law cited above are applicable in the present case. 10. In view of the foregoing reasons, the respondents are directed to hold the review DPC as on 21-2-1981 and if late Shri Ramesh Chander Sharma is found entitled, promote him on notional basis and fix his pay in the scale of higher post from the deemed date of promotion and pay all consequential monetary benefits (i.e. arrears of pay and all pensionary benefits on the basis of fixation of his pay on the higher post) to the legal heirs or such of the legal heirs who are legally entitled for the same within a period of four months from the date of this order. 11. The prayer for remaining reliefs regarding payment of difference in pay for the period from 26-4-1962 to 1-7-1964 in terms of Annexure P-2 and enhanced salary from 21-7-1977 to 24-2-1981 as per Annexure P-21 is not sustainable and is declined accordingly. 12. The original application is partly allowed in terms of above orders with no orders as to costs.