Order Heard the parties. 2. Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the only claim of the petitioner which now survives in this writ petition is that he should be given the difference/arrears of salary from 1.5.1993 between the post of Associate Professor and Professor. He relied on the judgment of Dr. Paras Nath Prasad VS. The State of Bihar and Others 1990(2) PLJR 2481 Ranjit Sa hay Jamuar and Another VS. State of Bihar and Others 1999(1) PLJR 272 and Sita Ram Prasad" Srivastava vs. State of Bihar and others [2002(2) BLJ 790] [ : 2002(2) PLJR 64]. 3. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, appearing for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the monetary benefits with retrospective promotion cannot be granted in all cases as a thumb rule rather various factors are to be considered if such claim is raised. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala and Others vs. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai [(2007)6 Supreme Court Cases 524]. 4. The judgments relied by Mr. Lala were rendered in different situations. In the case of Dr. Paras Nath Prasad and Ranjit Sahay Jamuar (supra), after protracted litigation, seniority was determined and, in that back ground, it was said that the respondents therein could not rely on Rule 68 of the Bihar Service Code and Circular of the Finance Department contained in Memo No. 2074 dated 4.4.1985. Sita Ram' Prasad Srivastava (supra) was rendered mainly relying on Dr. Paras Nath Prasad (supra). It is settled position that judgments are to be read in the context of the facts situation obtaining in the cases. Moreover, now in the case of E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai (supra), the Supreme Court observed as follows: "We have considered the decisions cited on behalf of both the sides, 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. Moreover, now in the case of E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai (supra), the Supreme Court observed as follows: "We have considered the decisions cited on behalf of both the sides, 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 in 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 in 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 in criminal cases where the incumbent has been acquitted by giving benefit 01 doubt or full acquittal. Sometimes in the matter when the person is superseded and he has challenged the same before court or tribunal and he succeeds in that and direction is given for reconsideration of his case from the date persons junior to him were appointed, in that case the 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 befits also." 5. The supervening factor in this case is that the petitioner raised his grievance of promotion with effect from 1.5.1993 by filing a representation on 5.6.2004 for the first time (Annexure-8) and on that basis filed this writ petition on 22.7.2004 i.e. after 11 years. It appears that the matter of promotion of petitioner and several others remained pending before the respondents, The petitioner did not move Courts of law within a reasonable time, otherwise the position might be different. Even when he filed writ petition-W.P. (S) No, 5736 of 2003 claiming that he is entitled to continue up to 60 years of his age, he did not raise such grievance. During pendency of this writ petition, he retired on 30.11.2005. Even when he filed writ petition-W.P. (S) No, 5736 of 2003 claiming that he is entitled to continue up to 60 years of his age, he did not raise such grievance. During pendency of this writ petition, he retired on 30.11.2005. However, the matter of promotion of petitioner alongwith several others was considered. In that process, the petitioner has been granted promotion with effect from 1.5.1993 to the post of Professor under Memo No. 310 (2) Ranchi dated 14.10.2006 and formalities in that regard was completed 6. Following the said judgment of E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai (supra), it is held that the petitioner is entitled to monetary benefits from the date of filing of this writ petition i.e. 22.7.2004 with all consequential benefits. The respondents are directed to give such benefits alongwith calculation thereof, as early as possible, and preferably within eight weeks from today. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. However, no costs.