JUDGMENT Rohit Arya, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, grievance is made with regard to the order dated 7/12/2011 by which petitioner has been promoted as Assistant Director, Industry in the pay scale of Rs. 15,600-39100+Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- w.e.f. 1/1/2008, but petitioner stood retired on 30th April, 2008, and relates to non-payment of salary for the period from 1/1/2008 to 30/4/2008 on the principle of 'no work no pay'; however, petitioner has been given the benefit of notional fixation w.e.f. 1/1/2008 on the promotional post. It is submitted that for no fault on the part of the petitioner he has been denied promotion on the aforesaid post of Assistant Director despite having eligibility for being promoted and due to inaction on the part of respondents, the same was denied on due date. Under such circumstances, petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing writ petition No. 985/2010 in which this Court vide order dated 31/3/2011, had directed respondents to decide petitioner's representation as regard his grievance of non-promotion to the post of Assistant Director on the date he was due to be promoted. It is submitted that it is only after the order was passed by this Court on 31/3/2011, the respondents galvanized their machinery for expediting the matter of promotion of petitioner. Under such circumstances, the denial of payment to the petitioner on the principle of 'no work no pay' for the period from 1/1/2008 to 30/4/2008 violates the equality clause as enshrined under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that petitioner was precluded from discharging his duties primarily for delay caused in according promotion in time. With the aforesaid submission, the prayer is made to direct the respondent to make payment of salary of promotional post for the period 1/1/2008 to 30/4/2008. 2. State counsel has supported the order passed by the authorities. It is submitted that petitioner is not entitled for the relief as claimed on the premise that petitioner does not have any right to be promoted, he has only right to be considered for promotion and no sooner did the vacancy come into existence, petitioner was accorded benefit of promotion to the post of Assistant Director, Industry. 3. It is submitted that petitioner is not entitled for the relief as claimed on the premise that petitioner does not have any right to be promoted, he has only right to be considered for promotion and no sooner did the vacancy come into existence, petitioner was accorded benefit of promotion to the post of Assistant Director, Industry. 3. It is contended that as sanction accorded for continuation of post was purely temporary in nature and was extended from year to year, the fund under grant-in-aid was released accordingly. There was no regular flow of grant as there was no fix number of posts. Grant-in-aid was also discontinued as communicated vide order dated 19/3/2013 (Annexure R/1). As a result, process of regularisation was also stalled. Moreover, the promotions by the State Government are accorded as per the recruitment rules. Under such circumstances, petitioner cannot claim monitory benefits for the period from 1/1/2008 to 30/4/2008. It is submitted that petitioner in fact has been given the benefit of notional fixation and therefore, non-payment of salary for the aforesaid period on the principle of 'no work no pay' cannot be said to be unjustified. Therefore, it is submitted that no case is made out for the aforesaid claim for release of payment. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. It is not in dispute that petitioner has not performed the duties of promotional post of Assistant Director w.e.f. 1/1/2008 to 30/4/2008. Petitioner has been given the benefit of notional fixation. It is not the case where the petitioner has actually worked on the post but denied the salary. Petitioner was accorded promotion when the vacancy arose and he could not be promoted for want of vacancy. Further, looking to the fact that promotional post itself was temporary in nature and being extended year to year with the sanction of fund in grant-in-aid in that behalf intermittently, in the opinion of this Court, petitioner cannot be said to be entitled for the benefit of actual pay for the said period merely because promotional benefits was accorded to him by order dated 31/3/2011 by this Court. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for arrears of salary for the aforesaid period from 1/1/2008 to 30/4/2008 cannot be sustained. Petition sans merits and is therefore, dismissed.