JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J.(Oral)-Petitioner was promoted on the basis of recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee to the post of Superintendent Grade-I from the post of Superintendent Grade-II. However, petitioner has not been granted monetary benefits as per notification dated 17.7.2000. Petitioner made representation vide Annexure A-5 on 17.10.2000 seeking monetary benefits. The representation made by petitioner vide Annexure A-5 was ultimately rejected after a period of 7 years. 2. Ms. Ranjana Parmar has placed on record copy of rejection order dated 17.10.2007. The same is permitted to be taken on record in the interest of justice. A bare perusal of letter dated 17.10.2007 reveals that no reasons have been assigned while rejecting the representation preferred by petitioner. However, the fact of the matter is that petitioner has been prevented from discharging his duties of the post of Superintendent Grade-I and in view of this the principle of “no work no pay” shall not apply. 3. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others versus K.V. Jankiraman and others, (1991) 4 SCC 109 have held as under: “We are not much impressed by the contentions advanced on behalf of the authorities. 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. It is for this reason that F.R. 17(1) will also be inapplicable to such cases.” 4. Accordingly, in view of the definitive law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petition is allowed. Letter dated 17.10.2007 is declared bad in law. Respondents are directed to pay the petitioner monetary benefits with effect from 29.10.1996 till 18.12.1997. This amount shall carry interest @ 10% per annum. Needful be done within a period of 4 weeks from today. No costs.