JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the captioned writ application, prayer has been made for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 08.06.2010, issued by the respondent no. 4, whereby the petitioner has been denied the monetary benefits in pursuance to the promotion to the post of the Deputy Director, Geology w.e.f. 15.11.2000 and to the post of the Additional Director, Geology w.e.f. 16.11.2004 and further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to pay the arrears of salary to the post of the Deputy Director, Geology w.e.f. 15.11.2000 and to the post of the Additional Director, Geology w.e.f. 16.11.2004 and on the basis of the last pay drawn, the pension of the petitioner be fixed and arrears thereof be paid to the petitioner. 2. The facts, as has been described in the writ application, in a nutshell are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Geologist in the basic grade in the year 1976 and the petitioner was given the senior Grade of Geologist w.e.f. 11.05.1990 and worked on the said post of the senior Geologist. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as the Deputy Director, Geology vide notification dated 31.12.1996 and the petitioner took charge of the said post on 28.02.1997 and worked to the said post of the Deputy Director, Geology, continuously. The petitioner was not given regular promotion, but he was given acting In-charge of the said post of Deputy Director. Thereafter, in the year 2001, the petitioner was given charge of the Additional Director, Geology, Hazaribagh vide Notification dated 29.06.2001 and the petitioner discharged duties of the said post. Subsequently, the petitioner was made Director, In-charge of the Geology vide Notification dated-07th July, 2003, whereupon the petitioner took over the charge and worked on the said post of the Director till his superannuation i.e. on 31.03.2007. From the aforesaid facts, it is quite evident that the petitioner has discharged the duties of higher post of the Deputy Director, Additional Director and the Director though he was not given regular promotion on the said post till his retirement. In spite of request made by the petitioner for regular promotion to the aforesaid post, the grievance of the petitioner was not redressed. The petitioner was communicated by the respondent no. In spite of request made by the petitioner for regular promotion to the aforesaid post, the grievance of the petitioner was not redressed. The petitioner was communicated by the respondent no. 4 vide letter dated 08.06.2010 that he shall be entitled to get the benefit of promotion only from the date of taking over charge to the post as per Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the respondents, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court for redressal of his grievances under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted to the post of the Deputy Director, Additional Director and the Director, but because of the laches on the part of the respondents, the regular promotion has not been effected by misconstruing the provisions of Rule 54 of the Jharkhand Service Code, which does not deal with promotion with retrospective effect, therefore, the action of the respondents is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order passed by the respondents, dated 08.06.2010, being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, is liable to be quashed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision rendered in the case of Dr. Sukumar Das Gupta versus State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2009 (4) JCR 565 (Jhr) and submits that in view of the aforesaid decision, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit, as has been extended to the petitioner in the aforesaid writ application. 4. Controverting the assertions made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, wherein, it has been submitted that in pursuance to the Notification dated 28.05.2009, the petitioner, Senior Geologist (Retired) was given regular promotion to the post of Deputy Director, Geology in the pay scale of Rs.12,000-16,500/- (Unrevised) w.e.f. 15.11.2000 till his retirement i.e. 31.03.2007, as per Annexure-A and A/1 to the counter affidavit and further it has been submitted that the financial benefit from 15.11.2000 will be given only after approval of Finance Department, Jharkhand. It has further been submitted that in pursuance to the Notification dated 16.12.2009, the petitioner was given regular promotion to the post of the Additional Director, Geology w.e.f. 16.11.2004 till his retirement i.e. 31.03.2007 as per Annexure-B. Further Notification dated 16.11.2004 would be given only after approval of the Finance Department, Jharkhand. In view of the opinion of the Finance Department on the basis of Rule 58 of the Bihar (Jharkhand) Service Rules and memo dated 14.04.1985 (Clause V) of the Finance Department, Officer is liable for the financial benefit to the post on which he has been promoted from the date of his joining to the promoted post and in no case financial benefit will be given from the date of vacancy of the post/date on which Commission has recommended promotion. On this basis, the financial benefit to the Assistant Director, Geology of Department of Mines and Geology who have been promoted to the post of Deputy Director, Geology will be given from the date of their joining on the post of Deputy Director, Geology. After getting the opinion from Finance Department, the impugned order has been conveyed to the petitioner. Therefore, since the request made by the petitioner has been turned down by the Finance Department, the writ petition is not maintainable. 5. A rejoinder on behalf of the petitioner to the counter affidavit has been filed, wherein, it has been submitted that similar benefit has been given in the case of Dr. Sachita Kumar Sinha versus State of Bihar and others reported in 1995 (1) PLJR 362 and in W.P. (S) No. 2764 of 2003 in the case of Dr. Sukumar Das Gupta versus State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2009 (4) JCR 565 (Jhr). It is relevant to state and submit that both the High Court while deciding the issue have relied upon Supreme Court’s judgment reported in AIR 1986 SC 1571 and AIR 1991 SC 101 . 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State apart from reiterating the submissions made in the counter affidavit, has vociferously submitted that the action of the respondents in denying the monetary benefit cannot be construed to be illegal in view of Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State apart from reiterating the submissions made in the counter affidavit, has vociferously submitted that the action of the respondents in denying the monetary benefit cannot be construed to be illegal in view of Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, this Court is inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioner on the following grounds:- (i) Admittedly, there is no denying of the fact that the petitioner has successfully discharged the duties of the post of Deputy Director, Additional Director and the Director till his superannuation on officiating basis and the petitioner discharged his duties on the said post to the satisfaction of the higher officials without any grievance, therefore, the respondents are duty bound to make payment of higher post, as has been held by this Court in the case of Dr. Sukumar Das Gupta (Supra) and the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Dr. Sachita Kumar Sinha (Supra). (ii) The objection raised by the Finance Department in denying the financial liability of the State Government to make payment of salary of the higher post is wholly untenable and the respondents are totally unjustified in denying the petitioner’s right to receive the pay of the higher post and since the petitioner has discharged his duties of the higher post on officiating basis to the utmost satisfaction of the respondents-authorities, now taking the pretext of Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code, the respondents cannot deny the right of the petitioner to receive the pay of the higher post and it is the settled position of law, as has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court that the petitioner is entitled to receive the arrears of salary from the date, the petitioner has been officiating on higher post of Deputy Director, Additional Director and Director and the petitioner is also entitled to pensionary benefits on the basis of higher pay that would be determined by the respondents. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to make payment of salary & other allowances to the petitioner from the date, he was discharging his official duties on the post of the Deputy Director, Additional Director and the Director till the date of his superannuation after deducting the salary already paid to the petitioner and the petitioner would be further entitled to the pensionary benefits on the basis of the pay of the Director, the post on which on attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner has retired. The Respondents are further directed to make payment of arrears of salary within a period of four months from the date of receipt/communication of the order and the pension of the petitioner be fixed accordingly within the aforesaid period. Petition allowed.