JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.H. Nabam, leaned Senior Govt. Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh, for the State respondent. 2. The short and only question involved is, whether the principle "no work, no pay" is applicable to the present case. To consider and settle this question, it requires a little reference to certain relevant facts. The petitioner is a diploma holder in Civil Engineering and he has been serving as an Assistant Engineer (Civil) w.e.f. 26.5.1996 in the Rural Works Department. There is a Recruitment Rules called Executive Engineer (Civil) Recruitment Rules, 1998, (hereinafter referred to as 'Recruitment Rules of 1998', in short). As per the aforesaid Recruitment Rules of 1998, Assistant Engineers, both Degree and Diploma holders, should possess 8 years experience for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. The State Cabinet took a decision on 6.11.2000, fixing 8 years for degree holders and 10 years for Diploma holders, experience for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. However, no amendment as such was made to the Recruitment Rules of 1998, immediately after the said Cabinet decision. The amendment to the aforesaid Recruitment Rules of 1998 was made in terms of the said Cabinet decision which was given effect only from 4.7.2005 i.e. from the date of gazette notification. Before the gazette notification was issued on 4.7.2005, 2 (two) vacancies of Executive Engineer arose due to retirement of some incumbents on 28.2.2005 and 31.3.2005. The petitioner, as claimed by him, became eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer on 29.5.2004 under the Recruitment Rules of 1998. In the meantime, a Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'D.P.C.' in short) was held on 24.5.2005 by the Department concerned. In the said D.P.C., none of the Diploma holders, including the petitioner, was recommended for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer as because it considered the cases of Diploma holders on the basis of Cabinet decision dated 6.11.2000 although the amendment to Recruitment Rules was made effective only from 4.7.2005. The petitioner challenged the said decision of the D.P.C. in WP(C) 324(AP) 2005 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23.6.2005 allowing the writ petition and directing the respondent authorities to hold the review D.P.C. for consideration of the petitioner's case. The State respondents challenged the said order by preferring W.A. No. 54(AP) 2006. The petitioner challenged the said decision of the D.P.C. in WP(C) 324(AP) 2005 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23.6.2005 allowing the writ petition and directing the respondent authorities to hold the review D.P.C. for consideration of the petitioner's case. The State respondents challenged the said order by preferring W.A. No. 54(AP) 2006. During the pendency of the said Writ Appeal, another D.P.C. meeting was held for filling up fresh vacancies in the post of Executive Engineers and since, by that time, the petitioners have completed 10 years of regular service in the cadre of Assistant Engineer, the D.P.C. held on 15.6.2006 considered and recommended the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. Accordingly, the petitioner was promoted by an order dated 17.7.2006. Thereafter, the aforesaid writ appeal was disposed of vide Judgment and Order dated 10.1.2008 upholding the Judgment of the learned Single Bench and directing the respondent authorities to hold the review D.P.C. for giving retrospective effect to the promotion of the petitioner with effect from an earlier date when promotions were given to other eligible engineers to the post of Executive Engineer on the basis of recommendation of the D.P.C. held on 24.5.2005. In compliance to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, a review D.P.C was held on 25.4.2008 to consider the case of one Sri A.C. Borah who also similarly challenged the recommendation of D.P.C. meeting dated 24.5.2005 in WP(C) 713 (AP)2005 on similar grounds. The said review D.P.C. after going through all the records as per Recruitment Rules of 1998, found that one Sri R.L. Sera, should be appointed against roster point No. 9 as per reservation policy of the State Government and the instant writ petitioner Sri K.K. Hazarika, qualified for promotion against roster point No. 10, earmarked for unreserved category. On the basis of the said recommendation, the petitioner was given the benefit of notional pay fixation from the date when he assumed the charge of Executive Engineer without arrears. The petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent Commissioner, Department of Rural Works, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, on 14.5.2008, claiming financial benefits w.e.f. 24.5.2005. On the basis of the said recommendation, the petitioner was given the benefit of notional pay fixation from the date when he assumed the charge of Executive Engineer without arrears. The petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent Commissioner, Department of Rural Works, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, on 14.5.2008, claiming financial benefits w.e.f. 24.5.2005. The said prayer was rejected by the State Government which was communicated vide letter dated 16.6.2008 whereby the petitioner was informed that as he did not assume any higher responsibility, his case for extending financial benefits could not be considered except the pay fixation benefit. The said order dated 8.5.2008 providing benefit of notional pay fixation from the date of assuming the charge as Executive Engineer without arrears and letter dated 16.6.2008 denying financial benefits to the petitioner, are under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Mr. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that since the petitioner has been given promotion with effect from the date of holding the D.P.C. meeting on 24.5.2005 to the post of Executive Engineer and also given the benefit of notional pay fixation, as per recommendation of review D.P.C. held on 24.5.2008, there is no justification in denying the financial benefits with arrears from 245.2005 i.e. the date on which the D.P.C. was held depriving the instant writ petitioner. According to the learned Counsel, the respondent authorities have taken contradictory stand by allowing the petitioner promotion with retrospective effect and giving benefit of notional pay fixation from the date when he assumed the charge of Executive Engineer without arrears. It was, according to Mr. Tiwari, learned Counsel, the fault of the respondent authorities in denying promotion when the petitioner became eligible and due in the month of May, 2004 and not being recommended for promotion by the D.P.C. held on 24.5.2005, wrongly and illegally, on the basis of Cabinet decision dated 6.11.2000 which was not given effect by amending the Recruitment Rules of 1998. Had the petitioner's case been recommended by the D.P.C. on 24.5.2005, he would have been promoted to the post of Executive Engineer in the year 2005 itself and he would have got the chance to assume the charge of Executive Engineer and therefore, the writ petitioner cannot be denied financial benefits/arrears w.e.f. 24.5.2005. In support of his submissions, Mr. Tiwari, learned Counsel, has cited the following authorities : (1) State of Kerala and Ors. In support of his submissions, Mr. Tiwari, learned Counsel, has cited the following authorities : (1) State of Kerala and Ors. v. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai (2007) 6 SCC 524 , (2) State of U.P. and Anr. v. Vinod Kumar Srivastava (2006) 9 SCC 621 , (3) Vasant Rao Roman v. Union of India 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 324, (4) State of A.P. v. K.V.L. Narasimha Rao and Ors. (1999) 4 SCC 181 , (5) Dev Dutt v. Union of India and Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 725 , (6) U.P.C. and Anr. v. A.K. Salim and Ors. (2008) 11 SCC 495 . 4. Countering the submissions made by Mr. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, it has been submitted by Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Senor Govt. Advocate, that there was only 1 (one) vacancy at the time when the D.P.C. meeting was held on 24.5.2005 and there was no scope for accommodating any incumbent for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. Besides, Sri A.C. Borah is senior to the instant writ petitioner in the rank of Assistant Engineer and as such, the petitioner could not be promoted to the post of Executive Engineer depriving his senior Sri A.C. Borah. According to the learned Senior Government Advocate, it is an universally acknowledged principle of law that no person is entitled to pay for no work. The petitioner was admittedly given promotion only after when he was recommended by the review D.P.C. meeting held on 24.5.2008 and accordingly, he got the chance to take over the charge in the higher post only after he was promoted on 8.5.2008 and as such, his claim for financial benefits/arrears from 24.5.2005 is not tenable inasmuch as he had no occasion to work as Executive Engineer during the period with effect from 24.5.2005 till 8.5.2008. That apart, Mr. Nabam, learned Senior Government Advocate, submits that there was no negligence or lapse on the part of the State Government in not giving the petitioner financial benefits/arrears w.e.f. 24.5.2005 so as to make the respondent authorities liable for payment of arrear financial benefits for the period during which he rendered no service in the higher post with higher responsibilities and duties. The learned Senior Government Advocate, would rely on the following decisions, to drive home his submissions : (1) State of Haryana and Ors. v. O.P. Gupta and Ors. The learned Senior Government Advocate, would rely on the following decisions, to drive home his submissions : (1) State of Haryana and Ors. v. O.P. Gupta and Ors. (1996) 7 SCC 533 , (2) A.K. Soumini v. State Bank of Travancore and Anr. (2003) 7 SCC 238 , (3) State of Tripura and Anr. v. Badal Deb Barma and Ors. 2005 (1) GLT 465 (Division Bench), (4) Babu Lal v. Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (2009) 4 SCC 287 . 5. Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Senior Government Advocate, has made a reference to provisions under F.R. 17(1) and submits that an officer shall begin to draw the pay and allowances attached to his tenure of a post with effect from the date when he assumed the duties of that post and shall ceased to draw them as soon as he ceased to discharge those duties. 6. I have gone through the case laws cited by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties in respect of payment of back wages with retrospective effect. The broad principle that "no work, no pay" should not be a matter of dispute. It is a matter of application of the said law/principle to a given case on consideration of the facts and circumstances involved. The Court is to find out whether the petitioner has been wrongfully denied promotion when he became eligible and due and whether he has been given the pay from the said due date but for illegal deprivation. In the present case, the petitioner was deprived of the same when it became due to him on 24.5.2005. In earlier writ proceedings, this Court directed the respondents to hold review D.P.C. and the respondent authorities in compliance of the Court's order, admittedly had to hold the review D.P.C. on 24.5.2008 and it was gathered by the said D.P.C. that the petitioner was found qualified for promotion against the unreserved vacancy of Executive Engineer as he had completed minimum qualifying years of service as per Recruitment Rules of 1998 and as such, the said D.P.C. recommended petitioner's promotion from the date of holding the earlier D.P.C. meeting on 24.5.2005. The proceedings of the review D.P.C. meeting held on 24.5.2005 has not been produced before this Court but the same has been reflected in the impugned order dated 8.5.2008. The proceedings of the review D.P.C. meeting held on 24.5.2005 has not been produced before this Court but the same has been reflected in the impugned order dated 8.5.2008. The relevant/operative portion of the impugned order dated 8.5.2008 is quoted hereinbelow for ready reference : And whereas, after going through all records as per the unamended Recruitment Rules of 1998, the review DPC found that Sri. R.L. Sera should be appointed against Roster Point No. 9 of the Roster register as per the reservation policy of Government of Arunachal Pradesh as it is a vacancy reserved for Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribes candidates and Sri. K.K. Hazarika qualifies for promotion against Roaster Point No. 10 which is an unreserved vacancy and that Sri A.C. Borah though completed the minimum qualifying years of service as per Recruitment Rules of 1998, could not be considered due to non-availability of post. Now therefore, the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh after considering the recommendation of the review DPC meeting dated 25.4.2008 is pleased to promote Sri K.K. Hazarika w.e.f. the date of holding of DPC meeting off 24.5.2005 to the post of Executive Engineer. His seniority will be fixed after Sri R.L. Sera, in the Seniority List of Executive Engineer. However, Sri K.K. Hazarika will get benefit of notional pay fixation from the date he assumed the charge of Executive Engineer without arrears. 7. What has glaringly emerged from the impugned order dated 8.5.2008 is that Sri. A.C. Borah, the other contender for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, though completed the minimum qualifying years of service as per Recruitment Rules of 1998, could not be considered due to non-availability of post. 8. No statement has been made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondent to the effect that the other contender Sri. A.C. Borah is senior to the petitioner to deprive him (instant writ petitioner) of promotion w.e.f. 24.5.2005. The State respondent could not show any record to the effect that there was no vacant post of Executive Engineer to promote the petitioner w.e.f. 24.5.2005. This is the reason why the review D.P.C. held on 25.4.2008. recommended promotion of the petitioner with effect from the date of earlier D.P.C. meeting held on 24.5.2005. The State respondent could not show any record to the effect that there was no vacant post of Executive Engineer to promote the petitioner w.e.f. 24.5.2005. This is the reason why the review D.P.C. held on 25.4.2008. recommended promotion of the petitioner with effect from the date of earlier D.P.C. meeting held on 24.5.2005. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no lapse or laches on the part of the State respondent in promoting the petitioner when he became eligible/due in the year 2005. Because of the mistake committed by the D.P.C. in the year 2005, on being influenced by the Cabinet decision dated 6.11.2000 which was in fact given effect to only from 4.7.2005 (i.e. from the date of gazette notification by suitably amending the Recruitment Rules of 1998), the petitioner was deprived of his legitimate and due promotion in the year 2005. Had there been a correct consideration and recommendation by the D.P.C. of 2005, the petitioner would have been promoted to the post of Executive Engineer as far back as on 24.5.2005 and he would have taken the charge of duties and responsibilities attached to the said higher post. In such a situation, the employee cannot be faulted with or condemned, by making a statement that he/she has not taken over the charge of higher responsibility and duties and thus, deprive him/her of due financial benefits. The Apex Court in Pillai's case (supra) had considered the facts and circumstances in which full service and financial benefits with retrospective effect could be given to an employee. 9. I would appropriately and gainfully quote the relevant portion from paragraph 4 of the Judgment of the Apex Court in Pillai's case (supra), aforementioned, as under: So far as the situation with regard to monetary benefits with retrospective promotion is concerned, that depends upon case to case. There are various facets which have to be considered. Sometimes in a case of departmental enquiry or any criminal case, it depends on the authorities to grant full back wages or 50 per cent of back wages looking to the nature of delinquency involved in the matter or any criminal cases where the incumbent has been acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt or full acquittal. Sometimes in a case of departmental enquiry or any criminal case, it depends on the authorities to grant full back wages or 50 per cent of back wages looking to the nature of delinquency involved in the matter or any criminal cases where the incumbent has been acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt or full acquittal. Sometimes in the matter when the person is superseded and he has challenged the same before the Court or Tribunal and he succeeds in that and direction is given for reconsidering of his case from the date persons junior to him were appointed, in that case, Court may grant sometimes full benefits with retrospective effect and sometimes it may not. Particularly, when the administration has wrongly denied his due then in that case he should be given full benefits including monetary benefit subject to there being any change in law or some other supervening factors. However, it is very difficult to set down any hard-and-fast rule. The principle "no work, no pay" cannot be accepted as a rule of thumb. There are exceptions where Courts have granted monetary benefits also. 10. Special emphasis may be given on the observation "sometimes in the matter when the person is superseded and when he has challenged the same before the Court or tribunal and he succeeds in that and direction is given for reconsideration of his case from the date when persons junior to him were appointed and/or when the administration has wrongly denied his due then the full service and monetary benefits with retrospective effect cannot be denied." In my considered view, the facts and circumstances of the present case is quite similar to the Pillai's case (supra) and the same principle can be applied hereto. 11. It is not necessary to refer to all the cases cited by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. I take this view in the light of the law settled in Ispat Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai reported in (2006) 12 SCC 583 , wherein it is held that "a case is an authority only for what it actually decides and a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision" and disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper. 12. 12. Having considered the petitioner's case in the light of the law settled by the Apex Court applicable to the facts and circumstances similarly to the present case, as discussed above, I am satisfied that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for quashing and setting aside the order dated 8.5.2008 issued by the respondent Commissioner (Annexure-P/3 to the writ petition) so far as it relates to denial of monetary benefits to the petitioner in the promotional post of Executive Engineer retrospectively w.e.f. 24.5.2005 and the consequential impugned letter dated 16.6.2008 (Annexure-P/5 to the writ petition) denying back wages in the promotional post of Executive Engineer retrospectively w.e.f. 24.5.2005. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 8.5.2008 (Annexure-P/3 to the writ petition) and impugned letter dated 16.6.2008 (Annexure-P/5 to the writ petition), are quashed and set aside. 13. In view of the above, it is held that the writ petitioner Sri K.K. Hazarika, Executive Engineer, is entitled to back wages and accordingly, it is directed that the respondent authority shall pass necessary order(s) and pay back wages to petitioner in the post of Executive Engineer with retrospective effect from 24.5.2005 within a period of 4(four) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order from the petitioner. 14. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed and disposed of. 15. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.