JUDGMENT 1. - Instant petition has been filed with the grievance that petitioners were allowed to work in their own pay scale as Principal vide orders dated 28/08/2003. However, they were regularly promoted as Principal on the recommendations of departmental promotion committee against vacancy years 2001-02 vide order dated 20/10/2007 - in terms whereof, notional fixation of pay of the post of Principal was made vide order dated 03/1/2008 (Ann.6). 2. Main core contention of the Counsel is that once they were discharging duties of the post of Principal since August, 2003, they are entitled to actual pay & allowances of the post held by them and notional fixation of pay under the garb of regular appointment against vacancy years 2001-02 in pursuance of order dated 20/10/2007 (Ann.5) though may not have deprived them of their future pay but that has certainly denied of actual salary of the post which they were continuously holding while discharging duties whereof since August, 2003. In support Counsel placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in Gopi Nathan Nair v. State (CWP-9271/2005 decided vide judgment dated 20/05/2008). 3. Submission made by Counsel is of no substance for the reason that the order dated 28/08/2003 by which petitioner were asked to work as Principal in their own pay scale apparently was not a promotion on adhoc/urgent temporary basis as provided under Scheme of service Rules and it was a mere posting on the post of Principal in their own pay scale and if the petitioners were not inclined to join the, they had option either to forego it or to have raised a dispute against it claiming salary of the post which was being held by them and indisputably, on their regular promotion on the basis of recommendations of DPC against vacancies of earlier years vide order dated 20/10/2007, the respondents have granted them benefit of notional fixation of pay & other admissible benefits under the scheme of Rules, vide order dated 03/11/08 (Ann.6); but raising grievance for payment of salary of the post of Principal from August, 2003 will not be permitted by this Court to be raised at this belated stage; more so they never protested at the time of their posting in 2003. 4. 4. It is relevant to mention that petitioners will not be put to any future loss since on regular promotions having been accorded vide order dated 20/10/07 (Ann.5), notional benefits have already been granted by respondents vide fixation orders dated 03/11/08 (Ann.6). 5. Judgment on which Counsel placed reliance, is of no assistance for the reason that it was a case where the petitioner was asked to discharge duties of the post vide order dated 30/1/99 and vide subsequent order dated 16/07/2001, was given regular promotion to the post of Asstt. Secretary against vacancy year of 1998-99 and prior to the order of regular promotion, petitioner retired from service in the year 2000, but was not given benefit of promotional post while computing pensionary benefits. While in instant case, petitioners have been granted benefit of notional pay fixation on their regular promotion made by respondents against vacancy years of 2001-02 vide order dated 20/10/07 (Ann.5). What has been granted by respondents is also in consonance with the judgment on which Counsel has placed reliance. It appears that their grievance for the salary for the post, on which they worked on their own pay scale, as already observed (supra), having never been protested at earlier point of time, cannot now be permitted to be raised at such a belated stage. Even under the scheme of Rules, in case of regular promotions being made against earlier year vacancies, the incumbents are entitled only for notional benefits of promotional post. 6. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******