JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsellor the parties. 2. The writ application of the petitioner has been filed for direction upon the respondents to grant him benefit of pay of Superintending Engineer (Mechanical) with effect from 25.11.1988 i.e. the date from which the said promotion has been given instead of the date of the notification dated 24.11.1994, as the notification speaks. 3. Petitioner filed a representation against the said notification seeking benefit of salary from the date of promotion i.e. 25.11.1988 but the same has come to be rejected vide order dated 9.7.2004 contained in Annexure-7. Even this order is under challenge in the present writ application. 4. Submission of learned counsel is that since benefit of promotion has come to be given to him from a back date then the other benefit must accrue which includes salary and other allowances which may not be confined from the date of notification. 5. Learned counsel for the State informs the Court that no benefit of the kind has been given to any other person, more so to persons whose names figure in Annexure-1. Though nothing specific has been stated as to why such a decision came to be taken but from perusal of Annexure-1 it is evident that there were certain litigations pending before the High Court with regard to seniority and other issues causing delay in grant of promotion. 6. The stand of the State is that not in every case the benefit of salary etc. can accrue to a person by virtue of promotion order. There are instances that the promotions are given notionally but the work is taken from the date when the employee joins that post and starts performing his duty. Petitioner has been given benefit of the pay and allowances available to the post of Superintending Engineer from the date of the notification. Initially it was released from the date he joined the post but subsequently corrections have been made and it is the stand of the State that this benefit has been paid to the petitioner from the date of notification. Though there is some denial in this regard by the petitioner but that is a matter of verification and accounting. 7. If the petitioner has not been paid salary from 24.11.94 till the date he joined the post then the respondents are bound to give salary of that period. 8. Though there is some denial in this regard by the petitioner but that is a matter of verification and accounting. 7. If the petitioner has not been paid salary from 24.11.94 till the date he joined the post then the respondents are bound to give salary of that period. 8. The stand of the State is based on the reasoning given in the case of Mahavir Pandey V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2000 (1) PLJR 768 . Paragraph-6 of the said decision supports the contention made on behalf of the State. Similar view has been taken in yet another decision which has been rendered in the case of Kedar Nath Prasad V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 9096 of 2005) and the order is dated 11.10.2006. 9. The ratio of the two decisions supports the contention of the State and the respondents have rightly rejected the claim for payment of salary from a prior date. 10. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed.