JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. It is not necessary to give all the facts in detail for the purpose of deciding the simple issue raised on behalf of the appellant that once he was granted promotion to three different posts in the year 2005 but with effect from earlier dates, it was wrong for the authorities to treat and describe the promotions as notional rather they should have paid actual monetary benefits on account of such promotion because the promotion orders clearly show that juniors had been promoted from the earlier dates and that entitled the appellant for promotion with retrospective effect. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Paras Nath Prasad vs. The State of Bihar and Others, 1990(2) PLJR 248 in support of his claim for monetary benefits since the date of promotions which have been presently given to him on notional basis only. That judgment in paragraph 19 has considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Alappat Narana Menon vs. State of Kerala, 1977 Vol. II S.L.R. 656. 4. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. B.M. Jha, (2007)11 SCC 632 . By this judgment the Apex Court referred to some earlier judgments wherein a view was taken that notional promotion from retrospective date cannot entitle the employee to arrears of salary because of the principle of "no work no pay". 5. The judgment of the Apex Court noted above is a short judgment and it does not show that the employee who was respondent before the Court had been granted promotion on account of discrimination vis-a-vis his juniors. On the other hand the judgment of the Division Bench which relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court deals with a similar case where there was no justification for denying actual promotion to the concerned employee from the date his juniors had been promoted. 6. On the other hand the judgment of the Division Bench which relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court deals with a similar case where there was no justification for denying actual promotion to the concerned employee from the date his juniors had been promoted. 6. In a case where employee has been subjected to hostile discrimination vis-a-vis his juniors, relief of notional promotion cannot mitigate the injury because in such a case it cannot be said that the employee had not worked due to his default or that the employer was not at fault and no benefits had been given to juniors. 7. Hence, in our considered opinion the case of the appellant is covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Paras Nath Prasad (supra). He is accordingly found entitled for monetary benefits on account of orders of promotion to three different posts as per Annexures-2, 3 and 4 to the memo of appeal. 8. To that extent the order of the writ court dated 19.11.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9281 of 2006 shall stand modified. The appeal is allowed to that extent. 9. The respondents are directed to pay the monetary benefits on account of promotions granted to the appellant at an early date preferably within three months.