JUDGMENT : 1. The matter has been heard through video conferencing. There is no complaint about any audio and visual connectivity. I.A. No. 3568 of 2019 This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 520 days in preferring the present appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 3. Having regard to the averments made in the application and submission made on behalf of the appellants-State of Jharkhand, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the period of limitation. As such, the delay of 520 days in preferring the present appeal is hereby condoned. 4. I.A. No. 3568 of 2019 stands allowed. L.P.A. No. 211 of 2019 5. The instant intra-court appeal has been filed under clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the order/judgment dated 05.10.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 7179 of 2011, whereby and whereunder order dated 06.09.2011 issued by the District Superintendent of Education, by which the monetary benefit for the post of I.A. (Trained), B.A. (Trained) and Headmaster have been refused to be granted with retrospective effect, has been quashed. 6. The brief facts of the case, which require to be enumerated herein for proper adjudication of the lis, reads hereunder as: The writ petitioner-respondent, having possessed the requisite qualification of Matric Trained Teacher, was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in Matric Trained Scale sometimes in the year 1975 by the District Superintendent of Education, Chaibasa and accordingly he joined on the said post on 11.05.1975. Thereafter, the writ petitioner-respondent passed the Intermediate Examination in the year 1978, Bachelor of Arts Examination in the year 1983 and Master of Arts Examination in the year 1992. The writ petitioner-respondent having passed the Intermediate Examination, Bachelor of Arts Examination and Master of Arts Examination submitted representation for grant of I.A. (Trained), and B.A. (Trained) scales and also for promotion to the post of Headmaster but the same was not granted, whereas according to writ petitioner-respondent, some of the juniors to him were extended such benefits by way of grant of I.A. and B.A. Trained Scales and promotion to the post of Headmaster, therefore, the writ petitioner-respondent approached before this Court by filing writ petition, being C.W.J.C. No. 3986 of 1999 (R), which was disposed of vide order dated 23.07.2001 with a direction upon respondent no. 2 to grant I.A. and B.A. (Trained) Scales from the date juniors to the writ petitioner-respondent were granted to the said scales and to consider the case of writ petitioner-respondent for promotion to the post of Headmaster from the date juniors to him have been promoted. When the order dated 23.07.2001 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3986 of 1999 (R) was not complied with, the writ petitioner-respondent filed a contempt case, however, after filing of the contempt case, the respondent no. 2 granted I.A. and B.A. Trained Scales and also the scale of Headmaster to the writ petitioner-respondent w.e.f 01.03.1983, 04.03.1987 and 01.05.1990 respectively, the date on which juniors to him were granted such benefits, but arrears of monetary benefits were not given to him. Thereafter, the writ petitioner-respondent represented before the respondents-authorities for consideration of his case for grant of monetary benefits from the date juniors to him were granted and also in view of the order dated 12.05.2010 passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1129 of 2009 but the claim of the writ petitioner-respondent was rejected vide order dated 06.09.2011 by the State-authorities. Being aggrieved with the order dated 06.09.2011, the writ petitioner-respondent again invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing W.P. (S) No. 7179 of 2011 and same was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, which is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal. 7. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, learned Sr. S.C. II appearing for the appellants-State of Jharkhand has submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed gross illegality in passing the impugned order whereby order dated 06.09.2011 has been quashed. According to him the impugned order has been passed without considering the provisions of Rule 58 of the Jharhand Service Code and Rule 74 of the Jharkhand Financial Rules and submitted that as per the aforesaid provisions, the writ petitioner-respondent is not entitled for monetary benefits from retrospective effect, as such the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law. 8. This Court having heard learned counsel for the appellants-respondents and on appreciating the materials available on record as also order dated 05.10.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 7179 of 2011, has found therefrom that learned Single Judge has placed heavy reliance upon the judgments rendered in the case of Dr. Paras Nath Prasad Vs. 8. This Court having heard learned counsel for the appellants-respondents and on appreciating the materials available on record as also order dated 05.10.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 7179 of 2011, has found therefrom that learned Single Judge has placed heavy reliance upon the judgments rendered in the case of Dr. Paras Nath Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Ors reported in 1990 (2) PLJR 248 and also in the case of Ranjit Sahay Jamuar & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors reported in 1999 (1) PLJR 272 , as such this Court deem it fit and proper to first delve into the aforesaid judgments in order to come to the conclusion about illegality and propriety of the impugned order as to whether the learned Single Judge while placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgments, referred above, has taken care of its applicability in the facts and circumstances of the case or not? It is evident from the impugned order that reference of judgment rendered in the case of Dr. Paras Nath Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Ors (supra) and in the case of Ranjit Sahay Jamuar & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors (supra) have been relied in the context of Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 74 of the Jharkhand Financial Rules since as per the writ petitioner-respondent, the provisions of Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code and 74 of the Jharkhand Financial Rules has been quashed and set aside by the Patna High Court in the case of Dr. Paras Nath Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Ors (supra). 9. This Court, further on going across the judgment rendered in the case of Dr. Paras Nath Prasad Vs. Paras Nath Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Ors (supra). 9. This Court, further on going across the judgment rendered in the case of Dr. Paras Nath Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Ors (supra) has found therefrom that the fact leading to the said was that the seniority of the writ petitioner in that case was restored with effect from the due date but consequential promotion and other benefits have not been extended by taking aid of the provisions of Rule 58 of the Service Code but while negating the said plea as was taken by the State of Bihar, it has been held therein that a person, who is entitled to promotion and have not been promoted, can always invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for a mandamus to the employer-State to consider his case for such promotion. Such due promotion is not a claim of anything notional but it is something that is really attached to the status and the service contract of the employee concerned. Likewise in the case of Ranjit Sahay Jamuar & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors (supra), similar was the fact of the present case and the Patna High Court has considered the aforesaid aspect of grant of promotion to the retrospective effect wherein it has been held that where promotion was denied initially and given subsequently with retrospective effect the denial of monetary benefits accruing from the promotion is not valid. It has further been held that the concerned employee cannot suffer where it was due to laches and mistakes committed by the department, the provisions of rule 58 of the Bihar Service Code and Rule 74 of Bihar Financial Rules is not applicable in such cases. 10. Facts leading to the case at hand is that though benefit of grant of scales, for I.A. and B.A. Trained scales and also promotion to the post of Headmaster, was given with retrospective effect but monetary benefit was not given retrospectively. The writ Court considering the judgment rendered in the case of Dr. Paras Nath Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Ors (supra) and in the case of Ranjit Sahay Jamuar & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors (supra) has directed to extend the monetary benefit accrued on account of grant of I.A. and B.A. Trained Scales and promotion to the post of Headmaster. 11. Paras Nath Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Ors (supra) and in the case of Ranjit Sahay Jamuar & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors (supra) has directed to extend the monetary benefit accrued on account of grant of I.A. and B.A. Trained Scales and promotion to the post of Headmaster. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed much reliance on Rule 58 of the Service Code and Rule 74 of the Jharkhand Financial Rules and submitted that as per above Rules, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of monetary benefits, as such, we deem fit and proper to first refer to the provisions of Rule 58 of the Service Code and Rule 74 of the Jharkhand Financial Rule. 12. Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Rules, reads hereunder as: 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. It is evident from the aforesaid provisions of the Service Code, whereby and whereunder it has been provided that 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. Meaning thereby, provision of Rule 58 (a) reflects that government servant will be entitled to pay and allowances of the post which he is holding from the date he will hold the said post and he will be denied for pay he will be attached with the other post. 13. Meaning thereby, provision of Rule 58 (a) reflects that government servant will be entitled to pay and allowances of the post which he is holding from the date he will hold the said post and he will be denied for pay he will be attached with the other post. 13. For ready reference, Rule 74 of the Jharkhand Financial Rules is quoted hereunder as: "Rule 74. All authorities which are competent to sanction revision of pay or the grant of concession to Government servants should bear in mind that retrospective effect should not be given to financial sanctions, except in exceptional circumstances, without the special approval of Government." Rule 74 of the Jharkhand Financial Rule speaks about the competency of an authority to sanction revision of pay or the grant of concession to the government servant and while exercising the power of such sanction it has to bear in mind that retrospective effect should not be given to financial sanctions, except in exceptional circumstances, without the special approval of Government. 14. The provisions of Rule 58 of the Bihar Service Code was the subject matter before the Patna High Court in the case of Dr. Paras Nath Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Ors (supra) as also in the judgment rendered in the case of Ranjit Sahay Jamuar & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors (supra) as such it is not now in dispute that judgment has already been decided by the Patna High Court with respect to applicability of the provisions of Rule 58 of the Service Code and for grant of benefit from the retrospective date. 15. Similar issue has also been considered by the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C No. 232 of 1998 with C.W.J.C No. 269 of 1998 wherein taking reference to the judgment rendered in the case of Dr. Paras Nath Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Ors (supra) as also in the judgment rendered in the case of Ranjit Sahay Jamuar & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors (supra), the benefits of promotion have been granted to the writ petitioners in the said case. 16. Paras Nath Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Ors (supra) as also in the judgment rendered in the case of Ranjit Sahay Jamuar & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors (supra), the benefits of promotion have been granted to the writ petitioners in the said case. 16. So far the case at hand is concerned, it is further evident from the materials available on record that the writ petitioner since has not been granted I.A. and B.A. Trained scales and regular promotion to the post of Headmaster, however juniors to the writ petitioner have already been granted such benefit, the writ petitioner having left with no option invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 3986 of 1999 (R), which was disposed of vide order dated 23.07.2001 with a direction upon respondent no. 2 to grant I.A. and B.A. (Trained) Scales from the date juniors to the writ petitioner- respondent have been granted to the said scales and to consider the case of writ petitioner-respondent for promotion to the post of Headmaster from the date juniors to have been promoted. Relevant portion of the order reads hereunder as: "In that view of the matter there is no justification in rejecting the claim of the petitioner merely on the ground that he was given I.A. trained scale and B.A. trained scale after the candidates juniors to him. The matter needs reconsideration by the D.S.E. I, therefore, direct the D.S.E., West Singhbhum, Chaibasa to reconsider the claim of the petitioner and if it is found that persons junior to the petitioner have been given I.A. and B.A. trained scale prior to the date when the petitioner was given, then necessary decision may be taken for giving promotion to the petitioner in the aforesaid scale with effect from the date when other persons have been given. Consequently the benefits of further promotion to the post of Headmaster shall also be considered in the same manner as other candidates junior to him have been considered. Consequently the benefits of further promotion to the post of Headmaster shall also be considered in the same manner as other candidates junior to him have been considered. The D.S.E. shall take decision of giving benefits to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." It is further evident that in pursuance to order dated 23.07.2001 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3986 of 1999 (R), the petitioner was granted I.A. and B.A. (Trained) Scales from the date juniors to the writ petitioner-respondent was granted to the said scales but no monetary benefit was extended to the writ petitioner from the retrospective date, which led the writ petitioner-respondent to adjudicate the said issue by filing another writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 7179 of 2011 invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was allowed vide order dated 05.10.2017, which is impugned before this Court. 17. The present intra-court appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground of applicability of provisions of Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 74 of the Jharkhand Financial Rules. It is evident from the order passed by learned Single Judge that the aforesaid ground has already been agitated by the appellant herein by filing counter affidavit in the writ petition [W.P. (S) No. 7179 of 2011] by taking into consideration the judgment rendered in the case of Dr. Paras Nath Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Ors (supra) as also in the judgment rendered in the case of Ranjit Sahay Jamuar & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors (supra). In those judgments, the Court came to the conclusive finding by negating the ground as was agitated by referring to Rule 58 of the Service Code and 74 of the Jharkhand Financial Rules. This Court is of the considered view that the issue has already been decided by Patna High Court in the case of Dr. Paras Nath Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Ors (supra) as also in the judgment rendered in the case of Ranjit Sahay Jamuar & Anr. Vs. This Court is of the considered view that the issue has already been decided by Patna High Court in the case of Dr. Paras Nath Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Ors (supra) as also in the judgment rendered in the case of Ranjit Sahay Jamuar & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors (supra), refused to accept the plea of the appellant-State of Jharkhand about applicability of Rule 58 of the Bihar Service Code as well as Rule 74 of the Jharkhand Financial Rules and as such according to our considered view the learned Single Judge in that regard cannot be said to have committed any error, in not accepting the ground/reason for denying the claim of the writ petitioner-respondent by applying the provision of Rule 58 of the Service Code and Rule 74 of the Financial Rules. 18. It is further evident from the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3986 of 1999 (R) disposed of vide order dated 23.07.2001 that specific direction was passed to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of scale of I.A. and B.A. Trained as also for promotion to the post of Headmaster, if any junior to the writ petitioner has been granted such scale/promotion and while considering the case of the writ petitioner, the State passed the order granting I.A. and B.A. Trained Scales and also granted promotion to the post of Headmaster with retrospective effect when the juniors to the writ petitioner was granted such benefits. 19. The question is that if there is no fault lies on the part of the writ petitioner-respondent and his case for promotion has not been considered rather juniors to him have been promoted and if the employees approaches to the Court of law and the Court of law has passed the order for consideration of case of such promotion/scale can such employees be denied such monetary benefit retrospectively? 20. It is not in dispute that promotion is not a fundamental right rather consideration for promotion is a fundamental right. 20. It is not in dispute that promotion is not a fundamental right rather consideration for promotion is a fundamental right. It was the specific case of the writ petitioners before the writ Court that he has filed one writ petition, being C.W.J.C. No. 3986 of 1999 (R), which was disposed of vide order dated 23.07.2001 by raising grievance that for no fault of his, he has been denied grant of scale of I.A. and B.A. Trained as also the promotion to the post of Headmaster while several juniors to him have been granted such benefit. The learned Single Judge has directed the respondents-authorities to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the fact that if any junior to the writ petitioner has been granted such scales/promotion, the decision shall be taken within a specific period. In the light of the aforesaid order, the competent authority of the State of Jharkhand has taken decision of grant of I.A. and B.A. Trained scale as also promotion to the post of Headmaster from the date when the juniors to the writ petitioner-respondent have been granted. In the light of the aforesaid order, the competent authority of the State of Jharkhand has taken decision of grant of I.A. and B.A. Trained scale as also promotion to the post of Headmaster from the date when the juniors to the writ petitioner-respondent have been granted. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner have not been provided with a chance for consideration of his claim for grant of higher scale i.e., of I.A. and B.A. trained scale and further promotion to the post of Headmaster for no fault lies on the part of the writ petitioner, which led the petitioner to approach this Court, and by virtue of order passed by this court, he has been granted promotion by the competent authority of State, he cannot be denied the monetary benefit of such post as because if the case of the petitioner would have been considered at the time when cases of juniors to him had been considered for promotion and granted I.A. and B.A trained scales, the writ petitioner would have been granted promotion with all consequential benefit since it is not the case of the State that the writ petitioner-respondent was not eligible to get such benefit and as such the writ petitioner has been deprived from his legitimate right to be considered for promotion for no fault of his own, which fact has come when he has been granted promotion with retrospective effect, in such circumstances if he will be denied with monetary benefit it will be nothing but a case of hostile discrimination by treating the writ petitioner different to that of other juniors who have been granted promotion earlier to the writ petitioner. Otherwise also it is settled position of law that if there is no fault lies on the part of the writ petitioner-respondent and if the employee is willing to discharge his duties and is forced not to render the duty for no reason whatsoever, in that circumstance principles of 'no work no pay' will not be applicable. 21. It cannot be disputed that if the employee has not discharged his duties, the principle of ‘no work no pay’ will be applicable but the said principle is not universally applicable, if it is found that the fault not lies on the part of the employee. 21. It cannot be disputed that if the employee has not discharged his duties, the principle of ‘no work no pay’ will be applicable but the said principle is not universally applicable, if it is found that the fault not lies on the part of the employee. The same issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Paluru Ramkrishnaiah & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors reported in (1989) 2 SCC 541 . Likewise, in Union of India & Ors Vs. K.V. Janki Raman reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109 , the issue came for consideration as to whether government can deny the wages of the past period if he has been granted promotion subsequently but from back date. The Union of India had contended that a person cannot be allowed to draw the benefits of a post the duties of which he has not discharged. This contention was negated as not applicable where an employee who is willing to work, is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his. The Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph 24 and 25 of the said judgment held as under: “24. It was further contended on their behalf that the normal rule is “no work no pay”. Hence a person cannot be allowed to draw the benefits of a post the duties of which he has not discharged. To allow him to do so is against the elementary rule that a person is to be paid only for the work he has done and not for the work he has not done. As against this, it was pointed out on behalf of the concerned employees, that on many occasions even frivolous proceedings are instituted at the instance of interested persons, sometimes with a specific object of denying the promotion due, and the employee concerned is made to suffer both mental agony and privations which are multiplied when he is also placed under suspension, When, therefore, at the end of such sufferings, he comes out with a clean bill, he has to be restored to all the benefits from which he was kept away unjustly. 25. We are not much impressed by the contentions advanced on behalf of the authorities. 25. We are not much impressed by the contentions advanced on behalf of the authorities. The normal rule of “no work no pay” is not applicable to cases such as the present one where the employee although he is willing to work is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his. This is not a case where the employee remains away from work for his own reasons, although the work is offered to him. It is for this reason that F.R. 17(1) will also be inapplicable to such cases.” Similar issue came for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. K.V.L. Narasimha Rao reported in (1999) 4 SCC 181 . In this case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that back wages are normally to be allowed in case by the retrospective promotion. In normal circumstances, when the retrospective promotions are affected all benefits flowing therefrom, including monetary benefits, must be extended to an officer who has been denied promotion earlier. Thus, it is evident from the judgments, as referred above, that the principle which cannot be denied therefrom is that if a promotion is denied to an employee because of the mistake of the State and due to no fault of such employee, then the authorities are bound to pay the arrears of salary etc. upon giving him the benefits of retrospective promotion after realizing for mistake. This principle would be extended even to those case where due to sheer negligence, carelessness or on account of mala fides an employee has been denied with the benefit of promotion at a proper time when it becomes due and gives him afterwards though retrospectively. Reliance in this regard be made in the case of State of Kerela & Ors Vs. E.K. Bhaskaran Pilla reported in J.T. 2007 6 SC 83 and also the judgment rendered in the case of Mohd. Ahmed Vs. Nizam Sugar Factory & Ors reported in (2004) 11 SCC 210 . But, on the other hand, where there is genuine dispute and the promotion was delayed because of pendency of such a dispute and before the settlement of the dispute the promotion could not have been granted, the salary for the past period can be denied even when promotion is given retrospectively after the resolution of the dispute. 22. But, on the other hand, where there is genuine dispute and the promotion was delayed because of pendency of such a dispute and before the settlement of the dispute the promotion could not have been granted, the salary for the past period can be denied even when promotion is given retrospectively after the resolution of the dispute. 22. We have examined the factual aspect of the present case and has found therefrom that the writ petitioner has been denied the chance of consideration for promotion to the I.A. and B.A. trained scales as also promotion to the post of Headmaster which led the writ petitioner-respondent to approach this court by filing writ petition, in which, a direction has been passed and in pursuance thereto the case of the writ petitioner has been considered and he has been found to entitled to get the benefit of I.A. and B.A. Trained Scales as also promotion to the post of Headmaster and ultimately the said benefit has been extended with a rider that he will not be entitled for monetary benefit in view of the provisions of Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 74 of the Jharkhand Financial Rules, as would be evident from the impugned order dated 05.10.2017. 23. It is admitted case of the State-respondent that the case of the writ petitioner-respondent could not have been considered by them and only when this Court has passed order the case of the writ petitioner-respondent has been considered and he has been found to be eligible and finally extended with the benefits of the scales/promotions with retrospective effect, meaning thereby laches not lies on the part of the writ petitioner-respondent rather it is mistake committed on the part of the State authorities and as such according to our considered view the judgment rendered in the case of Union of India & Ors Vs. K.V. Janki Raman, State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. K.V.L. Narasimha Rao (supra) and State of Kerela & Ors Vs. E.K. Bhaskaran Pilla (supra) are fully applicable herein. It also requires to refer herein that there is no dispute in the matter of grant of higher scale and as such the rider put by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Kerela & Ors Vs. E.K. Bhaskaran Pilla (supra) and Mohd. Ahmed Vs. E.K. Bhaskaran Pilla (supra) are fully applicable herein. It also requires to refer herein that there is no dispute in the matter of grant of higher scale and as such the rider put by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Kerela & Ors Vs. E.K. Bhaskaran Pilla (supra) and Mohd. Ahmed Vs. Nizam Sugar Factory & Ors (supra) will not be applicable rather as has been held therein if there is no dispute pending and if promotion has not been granted on the due date rather afterwards, such employee will be entitled for monetary benefit from the retrospective date of promotion. 24. Further question is regarding applicability of provisions of Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 74 of the Jharkhand Financial Rules. So far as rider about applicability of Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code is concerned, said issue has already been decided in the case of Dr. Paras Nath Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Ors (supra) as such putting the said rider is nothing but an arbitrary exercise for denying the legitimate claim of the writ petitioner-respondent. 25. So far as applicability of Rule 74 of the Jharkhand Financial Rules is concerned as would be evident from the content of the provisions of Rule 74 as referred above, it would be evident that the same pertains to the power of the competent authority in financial sanctioning in the case of monetary benefit with retrospective effect. But the question herein is about applicability of Rule 74 of the Jharkhand Financial Rules, which is to be decided in the facts and circumstances of the case and since the Hon’ble Apex Court has come to a conclusive finding by laying down the law about the applicability of the principle of ‘no work no pay’ and that will not be applicable if fault not lies on the part of the employee, in such circumstances, making the provisions of Rule 74 of the Jharkhand Financial Rules applicable is nothing but an arbitrary exercise as because if the wrong has been committed by the State authorities they cannot be allowed to take aid of their own wrong by denying claim. 26. 26. In course of argument of the case at hand, upon a specific query put forth by this Court to the learned counsel for the appellants-State as to whether the judgment rendered by Patna High Court as referred above is applicable in the facts of the case or not, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, learned Sr. S.C. II appearing for the respondents-State of Jharkhand has fairly submitted that the ratio laid down therein is applicable in the facts of the case. 27. In that view of the matter and basing upon the detailed discussions made herein above, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 05.10.2017. 28. In the result, the present intra-court appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. 29. In view of the dismissal of the instant intra-court appeal, I.A. No. 3569 of 2019 stands disposed of.