JUDGMENT : NELSON SAILO, J. 1. Heard Mr. S Borthakur, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Ms. D. Borah the learned Standing Counsel, Health Department who appears for all the respondents. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was promoted from the post of Senior Medical and Health Officer (SM&HO) to the post of Sub-Divisional Medical and Health Officer (SDM&HO) vide Notification dated 12.11.2007 (Annexure-A) and he was posted at Dhemaji Civil Hospital. However, on personal grounds, the petitioner sought accommodation in Sivasagar Civil Hospital and accordingly, he was allowed to remain in Sivasagar Civil Hospital by posting him as Deputy Superintendent in place of Dr. Ajit Kumar Sarmah vide Notification dated 11.04.2018 (Annexure-C). 3. Despite the posting, the petitioner was not given the charge by the said Doctor and therefore, he submitted a representation before the respondent authorities. Consequently, vide notification dated 21.3.2013 (Annexure-H), in partial modification of the earlier notification dated 12.11.2007, the petitioner was posted on promotion in the same capacity as SDM&HO at Sivasagar Civil Hospital against vacant post from the date of taking over charge. Pursuant to this, a communication dated 18.4.2013 (Annexure-I) was made to him by the Joint Director of Health Services, Sivasagar allowing him to join the said post beyond sanctioned post. 4. It is the petitioner's case that although he joined the post of SDM&HO in terms of the said Notification dated 21.03.2013 and the Communication dated 18.04.2013, he was only given the pay of SM & HO since the year 2007. Being aggrieved, he is before this Court through the present writ petition. 5. Ms. D. Borah, the learned Standing Counsel for the Health Department submits that she has received instructions from the Joint Director of Health Services vide communication dated 28.06.2018 made to her wherein, it is stated that when the notification of transfer vide order dated 21.03.2013 was issued, all the 5 (five) posts of SDM&HO in Sivasagar Civil Hospital were filled up and therefore, the petitioner could not have taken the charge of SDM&HO. In the Communication dated 28.06.2018 produced by Ms. D. Borah, a copy of the certificate of transfer of charge similar to the enclosure to Annexure-I of the affidavit-in-opposition to the respondent No. 1 is enclosed. Furthermore, the notification dated 21.03.2013, similar to Annexure-H of the writ petition is also enclosed. In the Communication dated 28.06.2018 produced by Ms. D. Borah, a copy of the certificate of transfer of charge similar to the enclosure to Annexure-I of the affidavit-in-opposition to the respondent No. 1 is enclosed. Furthermore, the notification dated 21.03.2013, similar to Annexure-H of the writ petition is also enclosed. The only difference is that the same is complete as the issuing authority and the signatory i.e. the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam, Health & Family Welfare (A) Department is shown. 6. Ms. D. Borah, the learned Standing Counsel by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent No. 1 filed on 09.11.2017 submits that the petitioner was initially promoted to the post of SDM&HO from the post of SM&HO and posted to Dhemaji Civil Hospital vide order dated 12.11.2007 but he did not join the said post on personal ground. Thereafter, on his request, the transfer order was modified and he was posted Deputy Superintendent, which is equivalent to the SDM&HO at Sivasagar Civil Hospital w.e.f the date of taking over charge vide order dated 11.04.2008. The petitioner also did not join the post and therefore, his transfer order was further modified vide order dated 21.03.2013 posting him as SDM&HO at Sivasagar Civil Hospital. As per the report of the Joint Director of Health Services, Sivasagar dated 09.10.2017, the petitioner did not join the said post but worked as SM&HO, Sivasagar Civil Hospital while drawing his salary as such since the year 2007. 7. Ms. D. Borah, the learned Standing Counsel however submits that she may be granted some time to obtain instructions as regards the payment of salary to the petitioner in the scale of SDM&HO is concerned because of the fact that he was apparently drawing the salary to the post of SM&HO all along. 8. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record including the following 2 decisions relied upon the learned counsel for the petitioner:- (i) Ramesh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors, (2015) 14 SCC 335 . (ii) Pradip Namsutra Vs. State of Assam, (2014) 5 GauLT 39 . 9. What can be noticed is that the petitioner was promoted to the rank of SDM&HO vide Notification dated 12.11.2007 and on his promotion, he was posted to Dhemaji Civil Hospital. Union of India & Ors, (2015) 14 SCC 335 . (ii) Pradip Namsutra Vs. State of Assam, (2014) 5 GauLT 39 . 9. What can be noticed is that the petitioner was promoted to the rank of SDM&HO vide Notification dated 12.11.2007 and on his promotion, he was posted to Dhemaji Civil Hospital. The petitioner on account of personal difficulties submitted a representation before the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam, Health & Family Welfare (A) Department on 15.11.2007. The said authority acting upon the petitioner's representation modified his transfer order through the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam, Health & Family Welfare (A) Department vide notification dated 11.04.2008 posting him at Sivasagar Civil Hospital as Deputy Superintendent vice one Dr. Ajit Kr. Sarma. 10. However, despite the notification, the petitioner was not given the charge of the Deputy Superintendent by the incumbent concerned and therefore, the petitioner submitted a number of representations to the respondent No. 1 through the respondent No. 4 on 22.05.2008, 29.07.2011, 19.09.2011 and 21.06.2012 (Annexure-D, E, F and G respectively). The petitioner in the later part of his representations also stated that the post of Deputy Superintendent was lying vacant on account of the promotion of the incumbent and therefore, he may be allowed to take over the charge of the post of Deputy Superintendent of Sivasagar Civil Hospital. 11. Consequently, the petitioner was posted in the same capacity as SDM&HO, Sivasagar Civil Hospital against the vacant post vide the notification dated 21.03.2013 (Annexure-H) w.e.f the date of taking over charge and until further orders. Thereafter, in view of the notification, the petitioner was allowed to join the post of SDM&HO beyond the sanctioned post by the Joint Director of Health Services, Sivasagar vide communication dated 18.04.2013 made to him. As per the said communication, the petitioner was also asked to hand over the charge Sr. M&HO to the Superintendent of Sivasagar Civil Hospital which he consequently did. The handing over of the charge by the petitioner is annexed to the counter affidavit of the respondent No. 1 and marked as Annexure-1 but there is no date on which the charge was handed over but the same contains the initial of the Joint Director of Health Services, Sivasagar with an endorsement dated 23.04.2013 and which was forwarded to the Commissioner & Secretary, to the Govt. of Assam, Health & Family Welfare (A) Department. of Assam, Health & Family Welfare (A) Department. Similarly, the petitioner also assumed the charge of SDM&HO, Sivasagar Civil Hospital on 19.04.2013, which was endorsed by the Joint Director of Health Services, Sivasagar on the same day. The Joint Director of Health Services while endorsing the same however made a note that the petitioner joined the post of SDM&HO at Sivasagar Civil Hospital as per the Government's order but there was no post vacant at Sivasagar Civil Hospital. The admitted position is that despite the petitioner having been allowed to join the post of SDM&HO, he continues to draw the pay of Sr.M&HO only. 12. As can be seen the notification dated 21.03.2013 was issued by the State Government in the Health & Family Welfare (A) Department whereby, it was shown that the petitioner was posted against the vacant post of SDM&HO at Sivasagar Civil Hospital. Likewise, the Joint Director of Health Services at Sivasagar also permitted to the petitioner to join beyond the sanctioned post of SDM&HO. Contrary to the stand taken by the respondents, the documents available on record is go to so that the petitioner was allowed to join beyond the sanctioned post at Sivasagar Civil Hospital. The contention of the respondents, the petitioner himself failed to join the promotional post at Dhemaji Civil Hospital cannot be ground to deprive him the benefit of promotion, in view of the fact his request to be retained in Sivasagar Civil Hospital was considered and permitted by the respondents themselves. Therefore, the petitioner having been permitted to join the post of SDM&HO at Sivasagar Civil Hospital by notification dated 21.03.2013 and vide communication dated 18.04.2013 will only have the right to be paid his salary in the promotional post w.e.f the day he assumed the charge of SDM&HO, Sivasagar Civil Hospital on 19.04.2013 as endorsed by the Joint Director of Health Services, Sivasagar. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Hemraj Singh Chouhan and Others., (2010) 4 SCC 290 held that the right of eligible employees to be considered for promotion is virtually a part of their Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The guarantee of a fair consideration in matters of promotion under Article 16 virtually flows from the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 13. The guarantee of a fair consideration in matters of promotion under Article 16 virtually flows from the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 13. Therefore, the respondents in paying the petitioner only the pay-scale of Sr.M&HO despite promoting him to post of SDM&HO under the facts circumstances will only amount to denying him his promotion, his entitlement towards pay and allowances in the promotional post. The Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar held that in normal circumstances when retrospective promotions are made, all benefits including monetary benefits must be extended to an employee who had been denied promotion earlier and the principle of 'no work no pay' cannot be accepted as a rule of thumb and the matter will have to be considered on a case-to-case basis. In this regard, the Apex Court relied upon the earlier decision rendered in State of Kerala and Others.-Vs- E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai, (2007) 6 SCC 524 , wherein, it was held that when the administration particularly had wrongly denied promotion to an employee, such employee should be given full benefits including monetary benefits subject to there being any change in law or some other supervening factors. Therefore, there are exceptions where Courts have granted monetary benefits also. 14. In that view of the matter and having regard to the fact that the petitioner was permitted to take the charge of SDM&HO w.e.f 19.04.2013, I am of the considered view that he will be entitled to the pay of SDM&HO from that date. 15. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities concerned to give the petitioner the pay of SDM&HO w.e.f 19.04.2013 less the amount already drawn in the rank of SM&HO. The same should be given to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, not later than the period of 8 (eight) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 16. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.