JUDGMENT : In the captioned writ application, following prayers have been made: (i) To direct the respondents, in particular respondent no. 4, to grant all consequential benefits including seniority and promotion to this petitioner with effect from 01.01.1988, inasmuch as, for no fault on the part of the petitioner, she was only appointed on 29.09.2009 whereas, she ought to have been appointed on 1.1.1988 itself, (ii) To direct the respondents, in particular respondent no. 4, to count the services of the petitioner from 1.1.1988, which is the deemed date of appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in the district of Sahebganj and (iii) For a direction commanding upon the respondents, in particular respondent no. 4, to pay the salary to the petitioner with effect from 1.1.1988 to 28.9.2009, as for no fault on the part of the petitioner, she was not appointed on 1.1.1988 and instead she was appointed only on 29.9.2009, pursuant to the direction given by this Court dated 1.5.2008 in W.P. (S) No. 573 of 2006. 2. The brief facts, as has been averred in the writ application, are that the applications for appointment on the post of Teachers from eligible candidates were invited in pursuance to the office order of the District Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj in the year 1987. The petitioner was one such applicant for the said post. In pursuance to her application, the petitioner was called to appear in interview and she was also asked to submit original certificate, which she duly submitted before the authorities. Since the order of appointment, was not issued inspite of eligibility of the petitioner and submission of the required documents, the petitioned filed representation on 28.01.1988 vide Annexure-2 to the writ application followed vide representation dated 21.08.1988 and 23.08.1988 vide Annexures-3 and 4 to the writ application. However, one Mina Kumari Sah was appointed in place of the petitioner due to connivance and patronage of the respondents-authorities. On 20.06.2005, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the District Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj, giving full details of her viz Mina Kumari Sah. However, one Mina Kumari Sah was appointed in place of the petitioner due to connivance and patronage of the respondents-authorities. On 20.06.2005, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the District Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj, giving full details of her viz Mina Kumari Sah. Since the representation submitted by the petitioner did not evoke any response, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 573 of 2006 before this Court, which was disposed of on 01.05.2008 with direction to the respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj, to take a decision, if not already taken on the basis of the enquiry report dated 28.12.2004, as evident from Annexure-7 to the writ petition. Since the order passed on 01.05.2008 in W.P. (S) No. 573 of 2006 was not complied with, the petitioner filed a Contempt Case (C) No. 438 of 2008 and after filing of the said contempt petition, the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj by rising from deep slumber and inertia, directed that the appointment of Mina Kumari Sah be cancelled and the petitioner be appointed, which is evident from Annexure-8 to the writ application. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed vide office order dated 29.09.2009 and the appointment of the petitioner was made as per conditions of service, which was in vogue on 01.01.1988 vide Annexure-9 to the writ application. The petitioner joined on 03.10.2009, as an Assistant Teacher in the Upgraded Girls’ Middle School, Mandri, Mirzachowki in the district of Sahebganj. From the date of joining on the said post, the petitioner has been discharging her duties to the utmost satisfaction of the authorities. Since the benefits of seniority, promotion, increments and other benefits with effect from 01.01.1988 has not been extended for the purpose of pensionary benefits after her retirement, the petitioner submitted representations on 07.04.2011 vide Annexure-10 to the writ petition and also another detailed representation was filed by the petitioner on 02.12.2014 vide Annexure-11 to the writ application, which was followed by another reminder vide Annexure-12 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in not extending the benefits to the petitioner with effect from 01.01.1988, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of her grievances. 3. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in not extending the benefits to the petitioner with effect from 01.01.1988, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of her grievances. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the petitioner was appointed by the order of the District Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj vide Memo dated 29.09.2009, which was issued in accordance with the then appointment rules and conditions of service, which was in vogue on 01.01.1988 and in view of the terms of appointment order, the respondents ought to have extended all consequential benefits with effect from 01.01.1988. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was kept out of services with effect from 01.01.1988 to 28.09.2009, for no fault on her part, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for payment of salary for the interregnum period i.e. from 01.01.1988 to 29.09.2009 and the said period be counted for seniority and service benefits right from 01.01.1988 along with other consequential benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of the respondents in not extending the benefits of seniority and other consequential benefits is in breach of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 300 -A of the Constitution of India and the normal Rules of ‘No work No pay’ is not applicable to the present case. In order to buttress his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the following citations: - (i) in the case of State of Punjab & Another-versus-Surinder Pal Singh & Another reported in (2009) 17 SCC 659 para 5, (ii) in the case of State of Haryana & Ors.-versus-Dinesh Kumar reported in (2008) 3 SCC 222 para 33 and (iii) in the case of Union of India & Ors.-versus-Satya Prakash Vasisht reported in 1994 Supp (2) SCC 52, para 54. 4. Repudiating the contentions raised in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 4. 4. Repudiating the contentions raised in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 4. In the counter affidavit, it has been, inter alia, submitted that the representation of the petitioner has been disposed of vide Memo No. 1359, dated 29.09.2009 by the District Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj, in which the authority has clearly stated that no financial benefit of promotion will be given to the petitioner from retrospective effect and seniority will be counted from the date of joining and the authority concerned also communicated the said Memo to the petitioner, accordingly, as per Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. It has further been stated that the petitioner was not in job since 01.01.1988 till 29.09.2009 and the matter was under enquiry and after that, she has joined the service from the year 2009 and the Rule of ‘No work No pay’ is applicable to the petitioner and the Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand barred the authority to grant financial benefit to any employee from retrospective effect. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State has assiduously submitted that admittedly, the appointment order of the petitioner was issued on 29.09.2009 and she joined the post on 03.10.2009 as Assistant Teacher in the Upgraded Girls’Middle School, Mandri, Mirzachowki, in the district of Sahebganj and since the petitioner did not discharge her duties from 01.01.1988 till the date of her joining, on the principles of ‘No work No pay’, she is not entitled for salary for the said period. 6. Rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, wherein, it has been submitted that once the appointment letter contained in Memo No. 1971, dated 01.01.1988 has been amended and the name of the petitioner has been inserted, the petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits including the counting of service from 01.01.1988 and other admissible benefits. 7. Rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, wherein, it has been submitted that once the appointment letter contained in Memo No. 1971, dated 01.01.1988 has been amended and the name of the petitioner has been inserted, the petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits including the counting of service from 01.01.1988 and other admissible benefits. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the records, it appears that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference due to the following facts and reasons : - (i) Admittedly, because of fortuitous circumstances, the petitioner, who was supposed to be appointed from 01.01.1988 but for the collusive and connivance and tacit patronage of some higher ups, one Mina Kumari Sah could be appointed in place of petitioner and continued for long 22 years. Ultimately, because of long battle fought by the petitioner and in pursuance to the order of this Court, the matter was enquired into and in the enquiry, it was found that there has been manipulation and the said Mina Kumari Sah was the beneficiary of malpractice, fraud and forgery. However, belatedly, the petitioner was appointed vide office order dated 29.09.2009 and the appointment order was issued to the said terms and conditions as was in vogue on 01.01.1988. (ii) Here is a classic case, in which, for no fault, the petitioner has been kept out of service and another imposter, namely, Mina Kumari Sah could be allowed to be appointed in place of the petitioner, though the petitioner was a rightful claimant for the said post, therefore, in such circumstances, if the petitioner would be extended the benefit of seniority from 01.01.1988 till 29.09.2009, then the interest of justice would be met. The view of the Court gets fortified by the decision of this Court rendered in W.P. (S) No. 5567 of 2004 in the case of Sulochna Kumari & Another-versus-The State of Jharkhand & Ors. (iii) So far as arrears of salary from 01.01.1988 to 29.09.2009 is concerned, this Court refrains from acceding to the prayer of the petitioner on the principles of ‘No work No pay’. 8. (iii) So far as arrears of salary from 01.01.1988 to 29.09.2009 is concerned, this Court refrains from acceding to the prayer of the petitioner on the principles of ‘No work No pay’. 8. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass appropriate orders for counting the seniority of the petitioner with effect from 01.01.1988 and the interregnum period from 01.01.1988 to 29.09.2009 be counted towards seniority and for the purpose of grant of pension and other retiral benefits but the said period ought not to be counted for the purpose of considering the case of the petitioner for promotion and the decision be taken by the respondents more particularly, the respondent no. 4, the District Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/communication of the order.