JUDGMENT P.S. Rana, Judge Order Present civil writ petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. It is pleaded that respondent department issued final seniority list of Excise and Taxation Officers (Class-1 Gazetted) of the Excise and Taxation department as it stood on dated 20.10.1995. It is pleaded that it was not in consonance with judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1999 SC 3471 titled Ajit Singh vs. State of Punjab. It is further pleaded that thereafter petitioner filed OA No. 405 of 2001 (CWP (T) No. 2580 of 2008) titled as Rama Nand Rathore vs. State of H.P. and others and order of Hon’ble High Court was sent to department for implementation. It is further pleaded that final seniority list was circulated by respondent department for giving petitioner rightful place. It is also pleaded that petitioner was promoted as Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner w.e.f. 17.8.1999 by giving notional benefits. It is further pleaded that pay of petitioner was fixed by respondent department on notional basis. It is further pleaded that pension of the petitioner was fixed on the basis of notional promotion. Petitioner sought relief to quash Annexure P6 wherein notional promotion granted w.e.f. 17.8.1999. Petitioner also sought relief for monetary benefits w.e.f. 17.8.1999. 2. Per contra, reply filed on behalf of the respondent pleaded therein that petitioner was promoted as Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner w.e.f. 17.8.1999 on notional basis. It is pleaded that petitioner superannuated from service on dated 30.4.2001. It is pleaded that petitioner did not actually work against the post of Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner and he was rightly granted notional promotion w.e.f. 17.8.1999. It is further pleaded that pay of the petitioner was fixed on notional basis vide order dated 31.8.2012. It is pleaded that action of the respondent is legal and sustainable in the eyes of law. It is further pleaded that all benefits have been released to the petitioner as per law. It is also pleaded that seniority list of the petitioner was maintained strictly in accordance with law and all benefits were given to the petitioner as permissible under law. Prayer for dismissal of writ petition sought. 3. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent and also perused the entire record carefully. 4. Prayer for dismissal of writ petition sought. 3. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent and also perused the entire record carefully. 4. Following points arise for determination in this civil writ petition:- 1. Whether word “notional” mentioned in notification No. EXN-B(14)-15/2001 dated 9.8.2012 issued by Principal Secretary (E&T) to the Government of H.P. is contrary to law, as alleged? 2. Whether petitioner is entitled for all monetary benefits for the post of Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner w.e.f. 17.8.1999 with retrospective effect? Finding son Point No.1 5. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that order of Principal Secretary i.e. notification No. EXN-B(14)-15/2001 dated 9.8.2012 qua the promotion of petitioner on notional basis w.e.f. 17.8.1999 is illegal and contrary to law is accepted for the reasons mentioned hereinafter. It is proved on record that respondent promoted the petitioner w.e.f. 17.8.1999 to the post of Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Class-1 Gazetted) w.e.f. 17.8.1999 on notional basis in the pay scale of Rs. 7880-11660 per month. It is also proved on record that petitioner filed CWP (T) No. 2580 of 2008 titled Rama Nand Rathore vs. State of H.P. and others which was decided on dated 8.7.2011. It is also proved on record that Hon’ble High Court of H.P. allowed the writ petition filed by Rama Nand Rathore and directed the respondent department to issue final seniority list by taking into account the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1999 SC 3471 titled Ajit Singh vs. State of Punjab. It is also proved on record that in view of directions of Hon’ble High Court of H.P. the seniority of petitioner was fixed rightly w.e.f. 17.8.1999. It is proved on record that petitioner was legally entitled for promotion to the post of Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner w.e.f. 17.8.1999. It is well settled law that promotion is fundamental right of the employee as per Article 16(1) of Constitution of India. It is well settled law that promotional right is attached with seniority of employee as guaranteed under Article 16(1) of Constitution of India unless employee is not disqualified for promotion as per Annual Confidential Reports. It is well settled law that promotion is fundamental right of the employee as per Article 16(1) of Constitution of India. It is well settled law that promotional right is attached with seniority of employee as guaranteed under Article 16(1) of Constitution of India unless employee is not disqualified for promotion as per Annual Confidential Reports. It is well settled law that promotion can be denied to the employee if there is some disciplinary proceeding pending against the employee. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that disciplinary proceedings were pending against the petitioner at the time of his promotion. It is also well settled law that no employee should be penalized without any fault. It is also well settled law that if employer did not promote the employee in accordance with law at stipulated period then employee should not be suffered for inaction of employer. Petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner w.e.f. 17.8.1999 on the recommendation of review DPC meeting held on dated 24.7.2012. It is held that notional promotion will not give any monetary benefits to the petitioner It is further held that if monetary benefits are not given to the petitioner then purpose of filing CWP (T) No. 2580 of 2008 titled Rama Nand Rathore vs. State of H.P. would be futile. Hence it is held that the word “notional promotion” mentioned in notification No. EXN-B(14)-15/2001 dated 9.8.2012 issued by Principal Secretary (E&T) to the Government of H.P. is illegal and same is ordered to be deleted from notification No. EXN-B(14)-15/2001 dated 9.8.2012. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided in affirmative in favour of the petitioner. FindingsonPointNo.2 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is also entitled for all consequential monetary benefits w.e.f. 17.8.1999 to the post of Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is held that petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Class-1 Gazetted) w.e.f. 17.8.1999 and it is also held that there were no disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner when his promotion was due and it is held that promotion is fundamental right of an employee as per Article 16(1) of Constitution of India. It is held that petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Class-1 Gazetted) w.e.f. 17.8.1999 and it is also held that there were no disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner when his promotion was due and it is held that promotion is fundamental right of an employee as per Article 16(1) of Constitution of India. It is held that petitioner will be legally entitled for all monetary benefits of promotion for the post of Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner w.e.f. 17.8.1999. 7. Submission of learned Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent that petitioner did not work on the post of Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner and he is not legally entitled for any monetary benefit on the concept of no work no pay is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is held that promotion of petitioner was withheld due to fault of employer only and it is further held that promotion of petitioner was not withheld due to fault of petitioner. It is well settled law that no person should be penalized for the action which he has not committed. It is further held that petitioner/employee cannot be penalized for inaction of employer qua his fundamental rights mentioned in Article 16(1) of Constitution of India. In view of above stated facts point No. 2 is decided in favour of the petitioner. 8. In view of above findings, it is held that (1) Word “notional” mentioned in notification No. EXN-B(14)-15/2001 dated 9.8.2012 issued by Principal Secretary (E&T) to the Government of H.P. is illegal and same is ordered to be deleted. (2) It is held that petitioner will be legally entitled for all consequential monetary benefits for the post of Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner w.e.f. 17.8.1999 till his retirement date i.e. 30.4.2001 in accordance with law and thereafter will also be entitled for all pensionary benefits in accordance with law. Petition stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application(s) if any also stands disposed of.