ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original respondents in the writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.136 of 2000(R). This writ petition was preferred by the respondent for getting salary for the post of Headmaster from 30th March, 1983. 2. Having heard learned counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the respondent is an original petitioner. As he was working as a Teacher, he was in search of promotion to the post of Headmaster, because his juniors were given promotion and he was discriminated and arbitrarily the promotion was not given to the respondent (original petitioner) and, hence, initially he preferred a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.2110 of 1995(R), which was decided on 10th January, 1996 (Annexure 7). This Court has held that the respondent (original petitioner) will be considered for the post of Headmaster – promotion. 3. In view of the aforesaid decision, no order was passed by the original respondents. Hence, contempt application was preferred by the respondent being M.J.C. No.145 of 1996(R) which was decided on 2nd December, 1997 (Annexure 8). 4. The original respondents had not considered the case of the respondent (original petitioner). Therefore, another Contempt application was preferred by the respondent being M.J.C. No.501 of 1998(R). In this Contempt application, this Court directed the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for promotion. 5. Now, the original respondents ultimately passed an order dated 28th August, 1999 granting promotion to the respondent on the post of Headmaster with effect from 30th March, 1983. Now, the question has been raised by the respondent in the writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.136 of 2000 (R) for grant of salary on the promotional post with effect from 30th March, 1983. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the State to make payment of salary to the respondent with effect from 30th March, 1983, without any work being done by the respondent on the promotional post and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the State. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties and looking the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the respondent (original petitioner) was constantly in search of promotion on the post of Headmaster, for which Contempt applications were preferred as stated herein-above. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties and looking the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the respondent (original petitioner) was constantly in search of promotion on the post of Headmaster, for which Contempt applications were preferred as stated herein-above. The respondent was given promotion on 28th August, 1999 with effect from 30th March, 1983. The retrospective effect was given because the direction was given by this Court in the earlier writ petition that the promotion should be given with effect from the date on which juniors of the respondents (original petitioner) were given the promotion. 7. Thus, the retrospective effect of promotion was given by the appellants, but, that does not mean that the respondent should be paid salary with retrospective effect. 8. It ought to be kept in mind that promotion was given on 28th August, 1999 with effect from 30th March, 1983 only with a view to appreciate the case of the respondent (original petitioner) to count seniority on the post of Headmaster with effect from 30th March, 1983 for further promotion, if any, to be given to the respondent, but, certainly not for the salary to be paid. Salary cannot be paid for no work being done by the respondent on the post of Headmaster. Retrospectivity of the promotion has to be given because juniors must have been promoted in the month of March, 1983 or April, 1983. Retrospectivity of the promotion has to be given so that the respondent (original petitioner) may not lose his seniority on the promotional post -Headmaster. Retrospectivity of the promotion has to be given so as to maintain equality between the respondent (original petitioner) and his juniors. Retrospectivity in the promotion has to be given so as to bring to an end arbitrariness and discrimination in the promotion between the respondent (original petitioner) and his juniors. There are varieties of reasons for which the promotion given today, but, will be made effective from yesterday, but, that does not mean that the promotee will be entitled for salary from the date on which the promotion is given. Salary can be paid from the date on which the promotee has actually started working on the promotional post. The salary of the promotional post can be given only from the date on which the promotee has assumed the charge of the promotional post. Salary can be paid from the date on which the promotee has actually started working on the promotional post. The salary of the promotional post can be given only from the date on which the promotee has assumed the charge of the promotional post. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while granting salary of the promotional post with retrospective effect i.e. with effect from 30th March, 1983. Hence, the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.136 of 2000(R) dated 20th September, 2012 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. As per Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2011, salary for promotional post can be paid only from the date the post was joined. Rule 58 of Jharkhand Service Code, 2011, reads as under: - “Rule 58: (a) Subject to any exceptions specifically made in these rules and to the provisions of clause (b) of this rule, a Government servant shall begin to draw the pay and allowances attached to his tenure of a post with effect from the date on which he assumes the duties of that post, and shall cease to draw them as soon as he ceased to discharge those duties. (b) Unless in any individual case the State Government otherwise direct a person recruited overseas shall commence to draw pay on first appointment as follows:- (i) in the case of a person who receives a first class passage to India, from the date of his arrival in India, [subject to his proceeding to take up his duties without avoidable delay]. (ii) in the case of a person who receives a second class passage to India from the date of his embarkation for India.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. The concept of the notional promotion has been lost sight of while deciding the writ petition. As per this concept, the promotion will be given with retrospective effect, but, not the salary can be given with retrospective effect. 11. It has been held by Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India reported in (1989) 2 SCC 51 at paragraph 19 as under:- “19. As per this concept, the promotion will be given with retrospective effect, but, not the salary can be given with retrospective effect. 11. It has been held by Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India reported in (1989) 2 SCC 51 at paragraph 19 as under:- “19. Since, however, the judgment of this Court dated 2-2-1981 in Civil Appeal No. 441 of 1981 has not been challenged and has become final, the next question which falls for consideration is as to what further relief, if any, are the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 441 of 1981 entitled in pursuance of the civil miscellaneous petitions referred to above filed by them. The reliefs which they have claimed have already been indicated above. It is now not disputed that the appellants of this appeal have in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 2-2-1981 been given a back date promotion to the post of Chargeman II synchronising with the dates of completion of their two years of service as Supervisor ‘A’. The grievance of the petitioners, however, is that this promotion tantamounts to implementation of the order of this Court dated 2-2-1981 only on paper inasmuch as they have not been granted the difference of back wages and promotion to higher posts on the basis of their back date promotion as Chargeman II. As already noticed earlier certain writ petitions filed in Madhya Pradesh High Court were allowed by that court on 4-4-1983 relying on the judgment of this Court dated 2-2-1981 in Civil Appeal No. 441 of 1981. Against the aforesaid judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 4-4-1983 Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 5987-92 of 1986 were filed in this Court by the Union of India and were dismissed on 28-7-1986. The findings of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in its judgment dated 4-4-1983 thus stand approved by this Court. In this view of the matter to put them at par it would be appropriate that the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 441 of 1981 may also be granted the same relief which was granted to the petitioners in the writ petitions before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. In this view of the matter to put them at par it would be appropriate that the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 441 of 1981 may also be granted the same relief which was granted to the petitioners in the writ petitions before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. As regards back wages the Madhya Pradesh High Court held: “It is the settled service rule that there has to be no pay for no work i.e. a person will not be entitled to any pay and allowance during the period for which he did not perform the duties of a higher post although after due consideration he was given a proper place in the gradation list having deemed to be promoted to the higher post with effect from the date his junior was promoted. So the petitioners are not entitled to claim any financial benefit retrospectively. At the most they would be entitled to refixation of their present salary on the basis of the notional seniority granted to them in different grades so that their present salary is not less than those who are immediately below them.” Insofar as Supervisors ‘A’ who claimed promotion as Chargeman II the following direction was accordingly given by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in its judgment dated 4-4-1983 aforesaid: “All these petitioners are also entitled to be treated as Chargeman Grade II on completion of two years’ satisfactory service as Supervisor Grade A. Consequently, notional seniority of these persons have to be refixed in Supervisor Grade A, Chargeman Grade II, Grade I and Assistant Foreman in cases of those who are holding that post.... The petitioners are also entitled to get their present salary refixed after giving them notional seniority so that the same is not lower than those who are immediately below them.” (Emphasis supplied) 12. It has also been held by Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Telecommunication Engg. Service Assn. (India) v. Union of India reported in 1994 Supp (2) SCC 222 at paragraph 5 as under:- “5. It has also been held by Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Telecommunication Engg. Service Assn. (India) v. Union of India reported in 1994 Supp (2) SCC 222 at paragraph 5 as under:- “5. On the second question whether petitioners were entitled to the payment of arrears of pay and allowances from the respective dates of their promotion, the Tribunal took the view that the High Court and various Benches of the Tribunal do not appear to have considered the magnitude of the problem arising out of the large-scale revision of seniority and promotions consequent thereto retrospectively. It took the view that the normal rule of giving back wages to the persons concerned will not apply to such cases or in such situations. While relying upon Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India it noted the observations of this Court that it is a well settled rule that there has to be no pay for no work although after due consideration a person is given a proper place in the gradation list having deemed to be promoted to the higher post with effect from the date his junior was promoted. At the most he would be entitled to refixation of his present pay on the basis of notional seniority granted to him so that his present salary would not be less than those who are immediately below him. The Tribunal further noticed that as large-scale revision of seniority and consequent promotions with retrospective effect might be anticipated in the instant case, the aforesaid ruling of the Supreme Court would apply and the relief should be moulded accordingly. In the light of these observations, the Tribunal gave the following orders and directions: “(1) Subject to what is stated in (2) below, we hold that the decision of the Allahabad Bench dated 20-2-1985 in the cases of Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan and the judgments of the Tribunal following the said decision lay down good law and constitute good precedents to be allowed in similar cases. We reject the contentions of the interveners to the contrary and further hold that having urged before the Supreme Court their various contentions and their SLP having been dismissed by the Supreme Court, they cannot reagitate the matter before us. We, therefore, dismiss MP Nos. 3396, 3397, 3493 and 3494 of 1991 in OA No. 2407 of 1988 as being devoid of any merit. We, therefore, dismiss MP Nos. 3396, 3397, 3493 and 3494 of 1991 in OA No. 2407 of 1988 as being devoid of any merit. (2) We hold that the applicants are entitled to the benefit of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 20-2-1985 except that in the event of refixation of seniority and notional promotion with retrospective effect, they would be entitled only to refixation of their present pay which should not be less than that of those who were immediately below and that they would not be entitled to back wages. We order and direct accordingly. (3) We hold that in case the redrawing of the seniority list results in reversion of officers who had been duly promoted already, their interests should be safeguarded at least to the extent of protecting the pay actually being drawn by them, in case creation of the requisite number of supernumerary posts to accommodate them in their present posts is not found to be feasible. We order and direct accordingly. (4) While effecting promotions, the respondents shall give due regard to the provisions for reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes.” This view was again upheld by the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal on review application.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. It has further been held by Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v O.P. Gupta reported in (1996) 7 SCC 533 at paragraph 9 as under:- “9. In these appeals unless the seniority list is prepared and finalised and promotions are made in accordance with the Rules on the basis of the above seniority list, the question of entitlement to work in the promotional posts does not arise. Consequently, the payment of arrears of salary does not arise since, admittedly the respondents had not worked during that period. The High Court was, therefore, wholly illegal in directing payment of arrears of salary. The order of the High Court accordingly is quashed.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. It has been held by Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. S.K. Khosla reported in (2007) 15 SCC 777 at paragraph 2 as under:- “2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The order of the High Court accordingly is quashed.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. It has been held by Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. S.K. Khosla reported in (2007) 15 SCC 777 at paragraph 2 as under:- “2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. He brought to our notice a decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. O.P. Gupta whereunder in respect of an identical matter arising out of similar proceedings of even date this Court while setting aside the decision of the High Court allowed the appeal at the instance of the State and held that in the circumstances noticed in that case which are identical as well in the cases before us, the question of payment of arrears of salary with retrospective effect from the notional dates does not arise since, indisputably the respondents had never worked during that period in the promotional post, the settled principle in such cases being, “no work, no pay”. The said principle applies with equal force to the cases before us too. Applying the ratio of the said decision these appeals are also allowed and the orders of the High Court are set aside and the writ petitions before the High Court shall stand dismissed. No costs.” (Emphasis supplied) 15 The aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements were not properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.136 of 2000(R) vide judgment and order dated 20th September, 2012. Hence, we hereby quash and set aside the judgment delivered by learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.136 of 2000(R) dated 20th September, 2012. This Letters Patent Appeal is allowed and disposed of. Appeal allowed.