Petitioner on the grounds urged in the writ petition seeks following relief: 1. directions the respondents to give the effect of promotion to the petitioner to the post of Private Sec­retary in the pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000 retrospectively w.e.f 13.3.2007, the date on which the private respondent Nos. 4 & 5 namely Sh. Mohd Shafi Dar and Sh. Ravi Mohan Khajuria have been given promotion as Private Secre­taries and also to give all the con­sequential benefits of promotion to the petitioner on the post of Private Secretary retrospectively w.e.f 13.3.07 by issuance of writ of man­damus; and 2. direction to the respondents to give the effect of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules 2005 to the petitioner and to promote the petitioner by giving the retrospec­tive effect of promotion under other Social Caste (OSC) category by implementing the roster point 10 under the provisions of SRO 294 of 2005 and to place the petitioner at proper place in the seniority list of Private Secretaries above respon­dent No. 4 Sh. Mohd Shafi Dar and below Sh. Amreet Singh by issu­ance of writ of mandamus: and 3. to declare the act of the re­spondents by which the respon­dents have not given the effect of promotion to the petitioner retro­spectively w.e.f 13.3.2007, the date on which the private respondent No. 4 & 5 have been given promotion as Private Secretaries as unconsti­tutional, illegal, ultra-vires and con­trary to the provisions of law and rules by issuance of writ of manda­mus. 2. Respondents in their reply have refuted the petitioners claim on the ground that as the petitioner had not been exonerated from his alleged role in manipulation of record relating to recruitment of Forest Guards/Forest Protection Guards in District Doda, in the year 2007, when his colleagues were considered and favoured with pro­motion, he could not claim promotion from said date. 3. Heard. Considered. 4. Petitioner joined Govt. service as Jr. Scale Stenographer on 15.9.1988. He was after rendering service as such for 14 years, promoted as Sr. Scale Ste­nographer on 19.02.2002. The Depart­mental Promotion Committee (DPC) was convened in 2007 to accord con­sideration to the eligible Sr. Scale Ste­nographers for their promotion as Pri­vate Secretaries. 3. Heard. Considered. 4. Petitioner joined Govt. service as Jr. Scale Stenographer on 15.9.1988. He was after rendering service as such for 14 years, promoted as Sr. Scale Ste­nographer on 19.02.2002. The Depart­mental Promotion Committee (DPC) was convened in 2007 to accord con­sideration to the eligible Sr. Scale Ste­nographers for their promotion as Pri­vate Secretaries. Petitioner though considered for promotion was not pro­moted in as much as he was facing an enquiry in connection with alleged his role in manipulating the record relat­ing to recruitment of the Forest Guards/Forest Protection Guards in district Doda when he was posted in Service Selection Recruitment Board. Record available on the file reveals that the Departmental Promotion Commit­tee kept one post of Private Secretary vacant for the petitioner. Relevant part of the deliberations of the Departmen­tal Promotion Committee meeting held on 21.11.2007 reads as under: "One post is reserved for Sh. Rakh Pal (SLC) pending out come of enquiry against him". 5. The Commission of Inquiry con­stituted vide Government Order No. 309-GAD of 2007 dated 20.3.2007 to in­quire into the matter in its report ex­onerated the petitioner from all the charges. The report was accepted by the Govt. and all the charges leveled against the petitioner dropped. The re­spondents after aforesaid decision vide Government Order No: 1181-GAD of 2008 dated 09.09.2008 promoted the petitioner as Private Secretary in stop gap arrangement in his own pay and grade. 6. This was followed by Government order No: 1416-GAD of 2009 dated 14.10.2009 promoting the petitioner as Private Secretary on substantive basis. The promotion in forms of government order was to take effect notionally from 25.4.2008 and regularly from 09.09.2008 i.e the date he was earlier promoted as Private Secretary on stop gap arrange­ment. Petitioner is aggrieved with the Govt. Order 1416-GAD of 2009 dated 14.10.2009 to the extent it restricts operation of his promotion from 25.4.2008 on notional basis and from 9.9.2008 on regular basis. Facts are by and large admitted. It is nobody case that the petitioner was not to be con­sidered for promotion to the post of Pri­vate Secretary in the year 2007. Order 1416-GAD of 2009 dated 14.10.2009 to the extent it restricts operation of his promotion from 25.4.2008 on notional basis and from 9.9.2008 on regular basis. Facts are by and large admitted. It is nobody case that the petitioner was not to be con­sidered for promotion to the post of Pri­vate Secretary in the year 2007. Stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioner was in the year 2007 facing an enquiry on the charge of having while posted in Service Selection Re­cruitment Board, manipulated the record in connection with recruitment of Forest Guards/Forest Protection Guards and that he was not considered for his promotion till he was exonerated by the Commission of Inquiry. It is insisted that the promotion was to be given to the petitioner only after he was exonerated and thereafter considered for promotion. Record available on the file however, confirms the stand taken by the petitioner. The deliberations of the Departmental Promotion Commit­tee meeting dated 01.11.2007 and the stand taken by the respondents in para 6of their reply make it abundantly clear that the petitioner was eligible for pro­motion under OSC category on the said date and as considered and one post from the available posts of Private sec­retaries was kept vacant expressly for the petitioner pending out come of the enquiry. In the circumstances once the petitioner was exonerated from all the charges and found otherwise eligible for promotion as is evident from the Govt. Order Nos dated 09.09.2008 and 14.10.2009, benefit of promotion could not be denied to him from the date he was entitled to be promoted but denied promotion as he alleged to be involved in the manipulation of record, prompt­ing the respondents to formally charge the petitioner and order Commission of Inquiry. The stand taken by the re­spondents, therefore, is bereft of any merit. Learned counsel for the peti­tioner rightly places reliance on the law laid down in Union of India etc v. K. V. Jankiraman etc AIR 1991 Supreme Court 2010. 7. This does not end the controversy. Question arises as to whether the pe­titioner is to be given monetary ben­efits w.e.f date he was found to be eli­gible for promotion and promoted as Private Secretary in terms of order in question. Learned counsel for the re­spondents states that as petitioner did not work as Private Secretary from 22.11.2007 he cannot claim monetary benefit from 22.11.2007. Question arises as to whether the pe­titioner is to be given monetary ben­efits w.e.f date he was found to be eli­gible for promotion and promoted as Private Secretary in terms of order in question. Learned counsel for the re­spondents states that as petitioner did not work as Private Secretary from 22.11.2007 he cannot claim monetary benefit from 22.11.2007. Plea raised by Mr. Basotra finds answer in the following observations of the Supreme Court in Jankiramans case (supra). "When an employee is completely ex­onerated in criminal/disciplinary pro­ceedings and is not visited with the penalty even of censure indicating thereby that he was not blame-wor­thy in the least, he should not be de­prived of any benefits including the salary of the promotional post. The normal rule of not work no pay is not applicable to such cases 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". 8. In the present case, the petitioner was exonerated of all charges by the Commission of Inquiry. He was not vis­ited with any punishment not includ­ing minor punishment like censure. He was not even asked to remain vigi­lant in future. In the said back-ground if the promotion was not given to the petitioner at the time he was due for promotion, his alleged involvement in the manipulation of recruitment record of the Forest Guards/Forest Protection Guards in District Doda, a charge sub­sequently found baseless, he cannot be exposed to punishment including de­nial of monetary benefit that would have come his way had there been no such allegation. In the case like one, focus is not to be on the nature of the duty performed by him but as to what prevented the petitioner from discharg­ing duty as Private Secretary. The pe­titioner was never placed under sus­pension nor was he out of the job. Where an aspirant for government ser­vice has participated in a selection pro­cess but has been unjustifiably left out and his non selection is latter set aside or where a Govt. The pe­titioner was never placed under sus­pension nor was he out of the job. Where an aspirant for government ser­vice has participated in a selection pro­cess but has been unjustifiably left out and his non selection is latter set aside or where a Govt. employee has been dismissed from service and after an interval during which he does not dis­charge his duty, he is taken back, gov­ernment may very well be heard say­ing that he cannot be paid for the pe­riod he did not actually work or dis­charge his duty. However, same can­not be true where a person is unjusti­fiably denied promotion to the higher post, though he continues to discharge his duty on the lower post till his griev­ance is set right and he is later found to have been eligible for promotion from earlier date and thereafter favoured with promotion. It is admitted case of the respondents that the peti­tioner continued to perform his duty as Sr. Stenographer during the period he faced Commission of Inquiry. 9. In the circumstances the mon­etary benefit cannot be denied to the petitioner from the date he was entitled to the promotion. 10. Viewed thus, the petition is al­lowed and Government Order No: 1416-GAD of 2009 dated 14.10.2009 quashed to the extent it gives effect to the peti­tioners promotion as Private Secretary notionally w.e.f 25.4.2008 and regularly w.e.f 9.9.2008. Resultantly, the respon­dents are directed to work out the date of promotion of the petitioner as Private Secretary (OSC category ) on such date promotion was due to him and would have been given to him had there been no charge of manipulation of record lev­eled against him and the commission of inquiry ordered by the State. 11. Petition disposed of along with connected CMAs.