JUDGMENT 1. The three petitioners in this petition filed way back in 2007, who have retired as Naib Tehsildars, are seeking quashing of the Government Order No. FC(A) 108 of 2007 dated 30.08.2007 to the extent their promotions have been regularized notionally from retrospective dates and they have been ordered to be not entitled to any arrears. Consequently, they have prayed for mandamus to command the respondents to release the monetary benefits in their favour on that count. 2. The petitioners were working as Girdawars in the Revenue Department. On 25.10.2002, the Administrative Officer with Financial Commissioner (R) issued Order No. FC (A) 525 of 2002 to the effect that the Girdawars, who had rendered five years or more service as such and had qualified the Departmental Examination of Naib Tehsildars shown in an-nexure A to the said order, shall discharge the duties of Naib Tehsildars in their own pay and grade on stop-gap arrangement basis. Almost five years thereafter, by order no. FC(A) 108 of 2007, dated 30.05.2007, sanction was accorded to the promotion/regularization of such ad hocees from retrospective dates mentioned against the name of each in annexure to the said order. The petitioners' were respectively granted such promotion/regularization with effect from 01.01.2005, 01.01.2007 and 01.01.2006. However, it was provided that the retrospective effect to the promotion/regularization shall be notional and the promotees shall not be entitled to any arrears. Aggrieved of denial of such arrears, the petitioners have filed this writ petition for the reliefs first above mentioned on the grounds stated therein. 3. It is stated that the Government vide Order No. 107-GAD of 2002, dated 16.01.2002, in compliance of the directions of the Supreme Court of India in Suraj Prakash Gupta v. State of J&K, framed certain guidelines to streamline the cadre management of the Gazetted as well as non-gazetted services in the State. In paragraph 7 thereof it was, inter alia, provided that where promotees have not been regularized for years, the departments should ensure that DPC is convened immediately for their clearance and that promotions should be made with retrospective effect from the date of occurrence of vacancy or date of acquiring eligibility whichever is later. In paragraph 7 thereof it was, inter alia, provided that where promotees have not been regularized for years, the departments should ensure that DPC is convened immediately for their clearance and that promotions should be made with retrospective effect from the date of occurrence of vacancy or date of acquiring eligibility whichever is later. The aforesaid guideline was later clarified in terms of Government Order No. 743-GAD of 2007, dated 28.06.2007, whereby it was provided as under: "Promotion of a Government employee shall take effect from the date he has been formally put in charge of the higher post subject to his eligibility in accordance with the recruitment rules and availability of the vacancy. His clearance/regularization shall taken effect from the date of his placement against the higher post or availability of vacancy or the date of his eligibility, whichever is later...." 4. The case of the petitioners is that as they were formally put in charge of higher posts of Naib Tehsildars on 25.10.2002, their promotions, in terms of the above said Government Order dated 26.06.2007, had to take effect from the said date, since the twin conditions of availability of vacancy and their eligibility were duly met. This is the crux of the petitioner's case. 5. In this regard, the respondents in their reply have stated that the petitioners are entitled to monetary benefits only from the date(s) the vacancies became available in promotion quota. The respondents are also relying on the very same Government Order dated 28.06.2007. Their stand is that since the posts for the petitioners in the promotion quota became available from the dates shown against their respective names, they cannot claim monetary benefits from the date they were put in charge of the higher posts in their own pay and grade, more so when their placements were ordered against available direct recruitment posts to ensure smooth working of Niabats. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material on record and considered the matter. 7. Though the petitioners were put in charge of higher posts in terms of order dated 25.10.2002, but there is no material placed on record to show that all such posts were, in fact, available in the promotion quota. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material on record and considered the matter. 7. Though the petitioners were put in charge of higher posts in terms of order dated 25.10.2002, but there is no material placed on record to show that all such posts were, in fact, available in the promotion quota. On the contrary, the order dated 25.10.2002 itself clearly mentioned that out of 85 posts tentatively available at the relevant time, 68 posts belonged to direct recruitment quota and 16 posts were available in promotion quota. The posts meant for direct recruitment had also been referred to the concerned Board for selections and the ad hoc arrangements against these posts were so made to meet the departmental exigency in the interregnum. As against 16 posts of Naib Tehsildars vacant in promotion quota, in all 78 persons/Girdawars were put on stop gap arrangement by order dated 25.10.2002. It is thus established by the very same order relied upon by the petitioners that as on 25.10.2002 all the posts were not available in promotion quota. It cannot, therefore, lie in the mouth of the petitioners that the condition of the posts being available and vacant was fulfilled. It is also not the case of the petitioners that their names as per their seniority figured in the first sixteen duly qualified Girdawars which would entitle them to be considered for such regularization from 25.10.2002 against three of the 16 posts which were available as on the date of issue of the aforesaid order. On that count, strictly speaking, the guideline as clarified by Government order dated 28.06.2007, sought to be pressed into service by the petitioners, is not attracted in the case of the petitioners, since the twin conditions mentioned therein are not fulfilled. 8. However, insofar as the Government Order dated 30.08.2007 is concerned, it indisputably demonstrates that the posts against which the petitioners were ultimately regularized were available from the respective dates their regularizations have been given effect to notionally. Nevertheless, the order does not disclose why the petitioners would not be entitled to any arrears. To this extent the two Conditions envisaged and laid down in Government Order dated 28.06.2007 are duly satisfied, and there was no reason for the Government to have denied such benefits to the petitioners. Nevertheless, the order does not disclose why the petitioners would not be entitled to any arrears. To this extent the two Conditions envisaged and laid down in Government Order dated 28.06.2007 are duly satisfied, and there was no reason for the Government to have denied such benefits to the petitioners. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners did not fulfil the other condition of being duly qualified or that they had not discharged their functions on such posts during the period in question. As mentioned above, in fact, the respondents in paragraph 7 of their reply have admitted the claim of the petitioners to that extent. Paragraph 7 of the reply is extracted below. It reads: "7. In reply to para 8 it is submitted that with respect to the petitioner's monetary benefits, they are entitled and eligible only when there are vacancies available in promotion quota. The regularization of the petitioners shall effect on the availability of vacancies...." 9. As seen above, on the own showing of the respondents, the vacancies against which the petitioners were ultimately regularized were respectively available with effect from 01.01.2005,01.01.2007 and 01.01.2006. Therefore, there is no legally justifiable reason for the respondents to deny to the petitioners the salary and other allied monetary benefits accruing on account of their regularization from such dates. It should be borne in mind that salary is earned in lieu of work and constitutes property. A government servant who has, admittedly, performed his duties on a post cannot be deprived of his salary of the post. True it is that the petitioners were being paid charge allowance, but this would be relevant and legally relatable to the period prior to the date of petitioners' regularization. Once their placement on higher posts was regularized in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules, all the service benefits on the promotional post accruing on account of such regularization would flow to the petitioners, which would include salary of the post. The petitioners, therefore, have an indefeasible right to claim salary and allied benefits for the period in question which cannot be denied to them by the respondents on any count whatsoever. No rule was brought to the notice of the Court that would disentitle the petitioners from such benefits. The petitioners, therefore, have an indefeasible right to claim salary and allied benefits for the period in question which cannot be denied to them by the respondents on any count whatsoever. No rule was brought to the notice of the Court that would disentitle the petitioners from such benefits. Not only that, the petitioners would also be entitled to annual increment(s), if any, falling due to them on account of such regularization from retrospective admitted date with consequential in-crease, if any, in all their retirement benefits. 10. It is worth mentioning here that two of the three petitioners herein had retired from service even before issuance of the impugned regularization order and the third petitioner has retired just within a period of one year or so thereafter. The claim for arrears of salary of the petitioners, therefore, relates to just only a few months [tentatively speaking, 22 months in respect of petitioner no. 1 (01.01.2005 to 31.10.2006 - his date of retirement); 3 months in respect of petitioner no. 2 (01.01.2007 to 31.03.2007 - his date of retirement); and 36 months in respect of petitioner no. 3 (01.01.2006 to 31.12.2008 - his date of retirement), and so would their claim pertain to grant and release of just 2/3 increments. It is unfortunate that this writ petition has remained pending for so long a period. The reason therefor seemingly is more attributable to the learned counsel representing the petitioners, who seems to have followed the case not with due diligence. 11. This petition is, accordingly, allowed. Government Order No. FC(A) 108 of 2007, dated 30.05.2007 is quashed to the extent it says that the promotees shall not be entitled to any arrears. The respondents are directed to release all moneys that would fall due to the petitioners, less, of course, by the amount of charge allowance drawn by them during the period in question from the date of their regularization, including any increase in their retirement benefits on account of regularization of their promotions as Naib Tehsildars from retrospective dates mentioned against their names in annexure to the aforesaid Government Order dated 30.05.2007. The needful shall be done within three months from today. 12. The connected MP(s) shall abide the aforesaid decision in the main case. 13. No order as to costs. Petition allowed