JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and State. 2. Before coming to the merits of the matter, the Court records the conduct to the State in not filing any counter affidavit in the matter despite the case having been filed in the year 2008 and thereafter admitted for hearing. It is also noted that on 30.03.2012 itself, specific direction was given to the State to file counter affidavit within one week. This also shows the attitude of the State in blatantly flouting the order of the Court. For such conduct, the Court deems it appropriate to impose cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the State to be deposited with the Bihar State Legal Services Authority within four weeks and receipt filed. 3. The petitioner has moved the Court for the following reliefs: “1. That this petition of the petitioner is being filed for issuance of writ of appropriate nature, order or direction quashing order dated 26.11.2007, passed by the Commissioner Darbhanga in service appeal no. 11/1998-99 (Mahendra Thakur verses the state of Bihar and ors) whereby and where under petitioner’s appeal was rejected without appreciating the case of the petitioner and without following the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court in the order dated 05.07.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8545 of 2001 (Mahendra Thakur verses State of Bihar and ors.). The petitioner also prays for a direction to the respondents for granting benefit of difference of salary and such other consequential amount of allowances/ in pension and other retrial benefits, after according him promotion to the post of B.A. trained scale/Head Master since 1978, when the petitioner became eligible for this post/scale. The petitioner also prays for a direction to pay interest at the rate of 12% all such arrears, and also cost and compensation as fixed by the Hon’ble Court, which according to the petitioner should not be less than Rs. one lac for the suffering and miseries caused to him and such long drawn litigation.” 4. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Matric Trained Scale and thereafter was granted the Graduate Trained Scale with effect from 01.04.1988, though by order dated 24.11.1995. However, monetary benefit was denied with the stipulation that only notional benefit shall be given with retrospective effect from 01.04.1988. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Matric Trained Scale and thereafter was granted the Graduate Trained Scale with effect from 01.04.1988, though by order dated 24.11.1995. However, monetary benefit was denied with the stipulation that only notional benefit shall be given with retrospective effect from 01.04.1988. The petitioner challenged the same in appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga and the same was dismissed by order dated 01.03.2001 against which the petitioner preferred C.W.J.C. No. 8545 of 2001. The same was allowed to the extent that the order dated 01.03.2001 was quashed and the matter was remanded to the Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga for passing a fresh speaking order, in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In terms thereof, the impugned order dated 26.11.2007 has been passed which is impugned in the present writ application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the initial order was passed on 01.03.2001, the co-ordinate Bench had found that the same was without considering the issues raised in the memo of appeal and, thus, after quashing it had remanded the matter for passing fresh speaking order. It was submitted that the order impugned suffers from the same infirmity, as even in the second round, independent reasoning has not been given and the earlier order has only been reiterated. Learned counsel further submitted that once the promotion has been given with effect from 1988, there is no reason why monetary benefits should be denied, as the petitioner was not responsible for delay in such consideration. It was submitted that the rules also require that every year a seniority list would be prepared and matter of promotion considered. It was contended that for three consecutive years, the petitioner was at serial no. 1 in the merit list in the general category and still he was denied promotion whereas others junior to him were granted the same. 6. Learned counsel for the State is not in a position to assist as no counter affidavit has been filed. 7. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties and upon going through the pleadings on record, the Court does not find any merit in the writ application. The right of promotion is not an inherent right and the same is restricted to only being considered for promotion. 7. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties and upon going through the pleadings on record, the Court does not find any merit in the writ application. The right of promotion is not an inherent right and the same is restricted to only being considered for promotion. Further, it is for the employer to decide as to whether even promotional posts which may be vacant, should be filled up or not. Once the employer decides to fill up the post by grant of promotion, the right of the employee for such consideration can arise. In the present case, in the year 1995, the petitioner was granted promotion to the pay scale of Graduate Trained teacher, though with effect from 1988. The Court would pause here. If the authorities in fairness of things have granted the benefit with retrospective effect, even notionally, it shows that at least they are being fair to the employee so that his past period during which he has obviously not discharged the duty of the higher post which was being given to him for the purposes of other benefits, including post retiral. The authorities were not obliged to grant such promotion with retrospective effect and, thus, a thing which they have done in the interest and for the benefit of employee cannot fasten any additional burden on them. The law is further clear that money being paid from public exchequer, if the person has not actually discharged the functions of the post held by him, he is not entitled to salary for such higher post. In the present case, there is no dispute that till 1995, the petitioner not having been actually promoted to the scale of Graduate Trained, was entitled to such scale only from the date he actually started performing his duty as a Graduate Trained Teacher. Thus, the principle of ‘no work no pay’ which is a sound principle and has been approved by the Courts, shall apply. Further, if the petitioner was so much concerned about his right to be promoted in the Graduate Trained Scale in the year 1988 itself, there is no explanation as to why he did not approach the Court at the relevant time or within a reasonable period thereafter. Further, if the petitioner was so much concerned about his right to be promoted in the Graduate Trained Scale in the year 1988 itself, there is no explanation as to why he did not approach the Court at the relevant time or within a reasonable period thereafter. Further, the stand of the petitioner that the previous order has been reiterated by the Divisional Commissioner, the same does not have much force, for the reason, that the background has been mentioned in the order which states that such promotion could not be given to the petitioner as the posts which were available were of the reserved category and the petitioner being in the general category, was not eligible for such promotion to those reserved posts. This fact has not been specifically controverted in the pleadings and only a statement has been made that many persons junior to the petitioner were getting the benefit. This does not in any way indicate that there were posts available in the general category and that any person from the general category, who was junior to him has been promoted. Such matter never agitated either before the authorities or before this Court cannot be gone into at this stage. 8. Upon perusal of the order impugned, the Court finds that the grounds mentioned in the order are valid for denial of the relief claimed by the petitioner. The reasoning does not have to mean that it has to be elaborate running into pages but should be one which is clearly understandable. In the present case, the reasoning is clear and specific. 9. In view thereof, the writ petition stands dismissed. 10. If receipt showing deposit of cost of Rs. 5,000/- by the State is not filed, within four weeks, Registry shall place the matter before the Bench for appropriate order.