JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. I.A. No. 8899 of 2019: 1. This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 70 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal. 2. No counter to the delay condonation application has been filed. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the statements made in this application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented from sufficient cause in preferring this appeal within time. 4. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay of 70 days in preferring this appeal, is hereby condoned. 5. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard at this stage for final disposal. L.P.A. No. 447 of 2019: 6. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 27.03.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3144 of 2014, whereby and whereunder, the order dated 30.12.2015 has been modified to the extent that the writ petitioner will be entitled for the salary for the post of Electrical Executive Engineer from the date of his promotion, i.e., 27.06.2008. 7. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which require to be enumerated herein, read as under: The writ-petitioner was initially appointed on 18.09.1997 on the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer vide office order issued under the signature of the Additional Secretary to the Government, Energy Department. After creation of Jharkhand, cadre division was made in the Department of Energy and promotion has been given to the rank of Electrical Executive Engineer from the Assistant Electrical Engineer without taking into consideration the advices of the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Raj Bhasa, Ranchi. Even the Departmental noting shows that one post extra has been given to the unreserved category for promotion to the rank of Electrical Executive Engineer. Departmental Promotional meeting was held under the Chairmanship of Sri Dilip Kumar Prasad, the Chairman of Jharkhand Public Service Commission on 09.06.2009 (under challenge) along with three members, who were Assistant Electrical Engineers, were recommended to be promoted to the post of Electrical Executive Engineer with effect from the date of their joining, depriving the petitioner of his legitimate right of promotion. Notification to this effect has also been issued vide Notification No. 1468 dated 25.06.2008, Notification No. 1469 dated 25.06.2008 and Notification No. 1470 dated 25.06.2008 respectively issued by order of the Governor, signed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Department of Energy, Ranchi vide Notification No. 1471 dated 25.06.2008 issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary to the Government, Energy Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi, the writ-petitioner was given additional charge of Electrical Inspector, Electrical Investigation Wing whereas Vijay Kumar Sinha was given promotion as Electrical Executive Engineer in the pay scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200/- in illegal and arbitrary manner. In pursuance of Notification No. 1471 dated 25.06.2008, the writ-petitioner took additional charge of Electrical Inspector, Electrical Investigation Wing besides discharging the work of Assistant Electrical Engineer. The writ-petitioner has filed a writ petition which being W.P. (C) No. 3716 of 2012 before this Hon'ble Court and vide order dated 02.05.2013 the writ-petitioner was given liberty to file fresh representation regarding his claim before the Principal Secretary, Department of Energy, Government of Jharkhand, who is said to be competent authority and on receipt of representation, the said respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, within six weeks from the date of receipt of representation. The writ-petitioner filed detailed representation before the Principal Secretary, Government of Jharkhand enclosing the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 3716 of 2012. Consequently, the Under Secretary to the Government, Energy Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi vide letter No. 1573 dated 11.06.2013 has asked the writ-petitioner to provide information to the query raised by him. Accordingly, the writ-petitioner submitted his detailed reply to the Under Secretary to the Government, Energy Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi Principle Secretary to the Government, Energy Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi has stated that the promotion of the writ-petitioner with effect from 2008 will be presented before the Departmental Promotion Committee and action in this regard will be taken only after decision of promotion committee and after consultation with Finance Department and rest two grievances of the petitioner has not been redressed. On 22.08.2013 meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee was held under the chairmanship of Member, Revenue Council, Jharkhand, Ranchi wherein it was decided by all the committee members to recommend the promotion of the writ-petitioner with effect from 27.08.2008 that is the date on which he took additional charge of Electrical Inspector and also held that on the subject of financial gain, opinion of Finance Department will be obtained. It is the case of the writ-petitioner that the point of financial benefits to be given with retrospective effects, the same has already been decided by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. (S) No. 1100 of 2007 vide order dated 22.06.2012 and affirmed in L.P.A. No. 471 of 2012 vide order dated 03.05.2013. Cont. Case (C) No. 601 of 2013 arising out of order dated 02.05.2013 was filed by the writ-petitioner whereby contempt case was disposed of considering that a reasoned order has been passed in compliance of order dated 02.05.2013 and further it is held that if the writ-petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent concerned, petitioner is at liberty to challenge the same before the appropriate forum. The writ-petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3144 of 2014 and during pendency of the writ petition, the respondent authorities by order dated 30.12.2015 has given promotyion to the writ petitioner w.e.f. 27.06.2008 but the financial benefit has been given from the actual date of promotion, i.e., 24.01.2011. The writ court vide order dated 27.03.2019 has modified the order dated 30.12.2015 holding the writ petitioner entitled for the salary for the post of Electrical Executive Engineer from the date of promotion, i.e., 27.06.2008, against which the instant appeal has been filed by the respondent-State. 8. It appears from the factual aspect as pleaded in the writ petition as referred hereinabove that the writ petitioner was appointed as Assistant Electrical Engineer under the respondent on 18.09.1997. The service of the writ petitioner on bifurcation of the State has been allotted to the State of Jharkhand. The writ petitioner was given officiating charge on the next higher post, i.e., Electrical Inspector (Electrical Executive Engineer) vide office order dated 25.06.2008. The said officiating posting continues till the date of regular promotion given to the writ petitioner vide impugned order dated 24.01.2011. The writ petitioner was given officiating charge on the next higher post, i.e., Electrical Inspector (Electrical Executive Engineer) vide office order dated 25.06.2008. The said officiating posting continues till the date of regular promotion given to the writ petitioner vide impugned order dated 24.01.2011. Thereafter, the case of the writ petitioner was considered by the duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee and found to be fit for promotion to the post of Electrical Executive Engineer, w.e.f. 2706.2008. The order was modified by notification dated 30.12.2015 to the effect that the writ petitioner has been given regular promotion to the post of Electrical Executive Engineer w.e.f. 27.06.2008 and the financial benefit w.e.f. 24.01.2011, i.e., the date on which the writ petitioner joined on the post of Electrical Executive Engineer in pursuance of the earlier notification dated 24.01.2011. The writ petitioner has challenged the part of the order by which the financial benefit was denied from the date of promotion, i.e., from 27.06.2008 by filing amendment writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3144 of 2014. The learned Single Judge has considered the fact that the writ petitioner was granted promotion to the higher post w.e.f. 27.06.2008 and hence having no fault on the part of the writ petitioner has modified the order dated 30.12.2015 holding the writ petitioner entitled for the salary for the post of Electrical Executive Engineer from the date of promotion, i.e., 27.06.2008, which is the subject matter of the instant appeal. 9. Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State of Jharkhand has submitted that the writ petitioner is not entitled for the monetary benefit in view of the provision as contained under Rule 58 and 103 as also in view of the judgment dated 12.01.2015 passed in L.P.A. No. 162 of 2014. It has been contended that Rule 58 and Rule 103 do not permit that in a case of retrospective promotion the financial benefit is to be extended. 10. Per contra, Mr. Prasant Pallav, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent has submitted that it is not a case where the provision of Rule 103 or Rule 58 will be applicable since the fact of the instant case is otherwise different. 10. Per contra, Mr. Prasant Pallav, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent has submitted that it is not a case where the provision of Rule 103 or Rule 58 will be applicable since the fact of the instant case is otherwise different. According to him, here is the fact where the promotion was denied to the writ petitioner to the post of Electrical Executive Engineer due to the laches on the part of the State since the day when the case of the writ petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Electrical Executive Engineer along with other three, cases of all the co-employees were considered. But, the case of the writ petitioner was not considered since the 4th post was not having with the roster clearance. The case of the writ petitioner was again put before the Departmental Promotion Committee after the roster clearance of the 4th post and taking note thereof, the Departmental Promotion Committee has granted promotion to the post of Electrical Executive Engineer w.e.f. 24.01.2011. But, subsequent thereto, the State Government vide notification dated 30.12.2015 has modified the said order of promotion to be given w.e.f. 27.06.2008 along with monetary benefit w.e.f. 24.01.2011. It has been contended that once the State has accepted the fault on its part by accepting the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting of which was conducted on 22.08.2013 along with other three co-employees then there is no reason to deny the monetary benefit w.e.f. 27.06.2008 instead of the benefit from 24.01.2011. Learned counsel, of the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the learned Single Judge on taking into consideration the said aspect of the matter, if has modified the order dated 30.12.2015 by holding the writ petitioner entitled for the salary to the post of Electrical Executive Engineer from the date of promotion, i.e., on 27.06.2008, the same cannot be said to suffer from error. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants at this stage, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. 12. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants at this stage, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. 12. (i) The fact which is not in dispute in this case is that the writ petitioner while working as Assistant Engineer under the respondent became eligible for promotion but even though he became eligible but his case for promotion to the post of Electrical Executive Engineer was not taken into consideration hence, the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3716 of 2012 was filed seeking therein the prayer to consider the case of the writ petitioner for promotion to the higher post of Electrical Executive Engineer. The co-ordinate learned Single Judge has considered the same and has directed that even though the case of the writ petitioner is pending before the Principal Secretary for promotion but not being considered, therefore, the Principal Secretary of the Department was directed to consider the case of the writ petitioner within the period of six weeks. (ii) The writ petitioner has made due representation for the same but the decision was not taken. Thereafter, contempt case was filed. The authority has decided to convene a meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee after consideration of the roster clearance vide order dated 29.07.2013 appended as Annexure-6 to the paperbook. The roster clearance was given and the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee was held under the chairmanship of the Member Board of Revenue on 28.02.2013. It would be evident from the minutes of meeting that apart from the case of the writ petitioner under the General Category, the case of other three, namely, Shri Agam Prasad, Shri Arbind Kumar Baldev Prasad, Shri Vijay Kumar Sinha were considered while in the year 2008 four posts were vacant against which the writ petitioner had completed the tenure (kalawadhi) but due to non-availability of the update roster, the writ petitioner was decided to be posted in in-charge capacity in stead of granting regular promotion vide notification no. 1471 dated 25.06.2008 which had been given w.e.f. 27.06.2008. 1471 dated 25.06.2008 which had been given w.e.f. 27.06.2008. For ready reference, the extract of the minutes of meeting is beign referred as under: The committee has also recommended simultaneously in view of the Finance Department Circular No. 2074 dated 04.04.21985 and Circular No. 3251 dated 20.01.2006 for regular promotion to the post of Electrical Inspector from the date when he took charge, i.e., w.e.f. 27.06.2008. So far as the financial benefit is concerned, the decision was decided to be taken after getting advice from the finance department. (iii) The respondent, thereafter, has granted regular promotion w.e.f. 27.06.2008 granting promotion w.e.f. 25.06.2008 from the date when the writ petitioner was directed to discharge his duty in additional capacity. Subsequent thereto and based upon the recommendation of the promotion committee, fresh notification was issued on 30.12.2015 by which the writ petitioner was granted promotion w.e.f. 27.06.2008 and has been held entitled for the monetary benefit from 24.01.2011. The monetary benefit since was granted only w.e.f. 24.01.2011, therefore, the writ petition has been filed for quashing the said part of the order by holding the writ petitioner entitled for arrears of salary w.e.f. 27.06.2008. The writ petition was allowed against which the present appeal has been preferred. 13. This Court, before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned order, deems it fit and proper to refer few judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of monetary benefit in a case of promotion said to be retrospective in nature. (i) In A. Francis v. Management of Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited, Tamil Nadu, (2014) 13 SCC 283 primarily at paragraph 6. We have gone through the aforesaid judgment quoted herein and found from the factual aspect that the appellant in the said case was appointed as a Clerk in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Department, subsequently promoted to the post of Section Officer in the year 1991. We have gone through the aforesaid judgment quoted herein and found from the factual aspect that the appellant in the said case was appointed as a Clerk in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Department, subsequently promoted to the post of Section Officer in the year 1991. Thereafter, he was posted as Assistant Manager In-charge (Public Relations) with specific condition that the same will not confer any preferential right for regular promotion and that the appellant will continue to draw his grade pay in his present cadre i.e. Assistant Labour Welfare Officer and superannuated from service on 31.05.2005 as Assistant Labour Welfare Officer and as such he sought for the salary attached to the higher post and in that pretext the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold at paragraph 6 that since the appellant in the said case vide order dated 28.02.2001, was allowed to discharge duties in the post of Assistant Manager making it clear that the appellant would not be entitled to claim any benefit therefrom including higher salary and further that he would continue to draw his salary in the post of Assistant Labour Welfare Officer. If the above was an express term of the order allowing him to discharge duties in the higher post, it is difficult to see as to how the said condition can be overlooked or ignored. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the decision of this Court in Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh v. Hari Om Sharma and Others, (1998) 5 SCC 87 was rendered in a situation where the incumbent was promoted on ad hoc basis to the higher post. The aforesaid decision is also distinguishable inasmuch as there was no specific condition in the promotion order which debarred the incumbent from the salary of the higher post. Such a condition was incorporated in an undertaking taken from the employee which was held by this Court to be contrary to policy decision. (ii) Thereafter almost similar issue has again been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab v. B. K. Dhir, (2017) 9 SCC 337 wherein the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in LPA No. 198 of 2003 [B.K. Dhir v. State of Punjab] has passed an order as has been quoted in the aforesaid judgment which reads as hereunder:- “2. … …. … …. … “Having thoughtfully considered the rival contentions, we find merit in the prayer of the appellant and are of the view that his case is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment in Pritam Singh Dhaliwal case [Pritam Singh Dhaliwal v. State of Punjab, 2004 SCC OnLine P&H 1428]. It was not a case where the appellant had laid a claim to promotion on the basis of the officiating status conferred on him, but had prayed only for the pay which was admissible to incumbents working on the said posts and performing similar duties. Resultantly, therefore, if the respondents had extracted work from him as Joint Director and Additional Director, he would certainly be entitled to pay as is admissible to the regular incumbents working on the said posts, regardless of any condition that may have been sought to be imposed upon him.” The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the said judgment, however, has considered the fact about adjudication of the issue by the Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein the concerned employee has been held entitled to salary of the post of Joint Director and Additional Director, Panchayats for the period he worked as such. The aforesaid order has been challenged before the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The stand of the State before the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was that the view of the learned Single Judge was correct inasmuch as the orders passed posting the appellant on officiating posts incorporated a condition that he would continue to draw his pay in the pay scale of Deputy Director, Panchayat and no extra financial benefit would be given to him for the officiating charge. Additionally, it was asserted that the officer concerned had submitted to the said terms and conditions and not raised any protest. The matter fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court and while considering the issue, reference has been made to the judgment rendered in State of Punjab and Another v. Dharam Pal, 2017 9 SCC 395 , in which, at paragraph 22 it has been held as under:- “22. In the instant case, the Rules do not prohibit grant of pay scale. In the instant case, the Rules do not prohibit grant of pay scale. The decision of the High Court granting the benefit gets support from the principles laid down in P. Grover [ (1983) 4 SCC 291 ] and Hari Om Sharma [ (1998) 5 SCC 87 ]. As far as the authority in A. Francis [ (2014) 13 SCC 283 ] is concerned, we would like to observe that the said case has to rest on its own facts. We may clearly state that by an incorporation in the order or merely by giving an undertaking in all circumstances would not debar an employee to claim the benefits of the officiating position. We are disposed to think that the controversy is covered by the ratio laid down in Hari Om Sharma [ (1998) 5 SCC 87 ] and resultantly we hold that the view expressed by the High Court is absolutely impeccable.” The Hon'ble Apex Court, in view of the decision rendered in P.Grover (Smt) v. State of Haryana and Another [ (1983) 4 SCC 291 ], Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh v. Hari Om Sharma and Others (Supra) and A. Francis v. Management of Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited, Tamil Nadu (Supra) has been pleased to hold that the issue of eligibility to hold the post was not taken before the High Court and the appeal was disposed of taking into consideration the fact that when the respondent had worked in the officiating post and has been granted the benefits by the High Court, he should be extended the said benefit by making an observation that had there been a contest on the eligibility of the respondent, possibly the matter would have been different and taking note of the situation, the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court has been declined to be interfered with. (iii) It is evident from the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer v. Hari Om Sharma, [ (1998) 5 SCC 87 ] wherein the case was of promotion as Superintendent Grade-II (in officiating capacity) with a condition stipulated in the order that the official work in the own pay scale and above promotion shall be subject to the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee as would appear from paragraph – 7 and 8 of the aforesaid judgment, which read as hereunder :- “7. In the beginning, it is seemly to state that there is no factual dispute with regard to the appointments or the posts. That being the position, we think it appropriate to refer to the orders of appointment as Ms Babbar, learned counsel for the appellant State of Punjab, would harp on the same. The order dated 9-12-2004 reads as follows: “ORDER On the retirement of Smt Chand Prabha, Superintendent Grade I on 31-7-2004 the post of Superintendent Grade I had become vacant. On that vacant post Shri Kewal Singh, Superintendent Grade II is promoted as Superintendent Grade I in his own scale. On account of promotion of Shri Kewal Singh, Superintendent Grade II as Superintendent Grade I and on account of proceeding on earned leave of Shri Bhinder Singh, Superintendent Grade II w.e.f. 7- 9-2004 Shri Ashwani Kumar Senior Assistant (Officiating Superintendent Grade II) and Shri Dharam Pal (Officiating Superintendent Grade II) are promoted as Superintendent Grade II. The officials will work in their own pay scale and above promotions will be subject to the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee. On the approval of the above committee they will be given financial benefits. On the basis of these orders the officials will not claim any seniority, etc.” On the basis of the aforesaid order, the respondent functioned as the officiating Superintendent Grade II. 8. As stated earlier, while he was officiating on the said post, he was promoted on officiating basis to function in the post of Superintendent Grade I. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows: “The officials will work in their earlier own pay scale and above promotions will be subject to the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee. On the approval of the above committee they will be given financial benefits. On the basis of these orders the officials will not claim any seniority, etc.” 14. In the light of the aforesaid judgments as referred above, we are now proceeding to examine the applicability of Rule 58 and 103 of the Service Code. 15. Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code is also required to be referred herein, which reads as under: “58. In the light of the aforesaid judgments as referred above, we are now proceeding to examine the applicability of Rule 58 and 103 of the Service Code. 15. Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code is also required to be referred herein, which reads as under: “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 allowance attached to his tenure of a post with effect from the date on which he assumed the duties of that post, and shall cease to draw them as soon as he ceases 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.” 16. Rule 103 of the Jharkhand Service Code is also required to be referred herein, which reads as under: “103. The pay of a Government servant appointed by the State Government to hold substantively, as a temporary measure, or to officiate in, two or more independent post at one time shall be regulated as follows:- (a) the highest pay to which he would be entitled if his appointment to one of the posts stood alone, may be drawn on account of his tenure of that post; (b) for each other post he may draw such reasonable pay, in no case exceeding half the presumptive pay (excluding overseas pay) of the post, as the State Government may fix; and (c) if a compensatory allowance is attached to one or more of the posts he may draw such compensatory allowance as the State Government may fix provided that such allowance shall not exceed the total of the compensatory allowance attached to all the posts.” 17. It is evident from the provision as contained under Rule 103 wherein it has been stipulated that the pay of a Government servant appointed by the State Government to hold substantively, as a temporary measure, or to officiate in, two or more independent post at one time shall be regulated as follows:- (a) the highest pay to which he would be entitled if his appointment to one of the posts stood alone, may be drawn on account of his tenure of that post; (b) for each other post he may draw such reasonable pay, in no case exceeding half the presumptive pay (excluding overseas pay) of the post, as the State Government may fix; and (c) if a compensatory allowance is attached to one or more of the posts he may draw such compensatory allowance as the State Government may fix provided that such allowance shall not exceed the total of the compensatory allowance attached to all the posts. Thus, it is evident that the provision of Rule 103 stipulates about a condition when a Government servant appointed by the State Government to hold substantively, as a temporary measure, or to officiate in, two or more independent post then the condition stipulated under the provision of Rule 103 would be applicable. 18. This Court is now proceeding to examine the admitted factual aspect of the given case, as follows: (i) The writ petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer and became eligible for promotion but not considered for promotion to the higher post of Electrical Executive Engineer. He approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3716 of 2012 along with one interlocutory application stating therein that the case of the appellant is pending for consideration before the Principal Secretary of the concerned department. The High Court passed order with a direction upon the Principal Secretary of the Department of Energy to consider the case based upon the representation to be filed by the writ petitioner. For ready reference, the operative part of the said order is being referred as under: “ … Considering the said submissions, I.A. No. 2255 of 2013 as well as the writ petition are disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation regarding his claim before the Principal Secretary, Department of Energy, Government of Jharkhand-respondent no.2, who is said to be the competent authority. On receipt of representation, the said respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, within six weeks from the date of receipt of representation.” (ii) The writ petitioner had represented before the authority concerned. His representation was considered by the Principal Secretary to the Government on 29.07.2013 as contained in Memo No. 2075 wherein it has been stipulated that in the cadre of the Executive Engineer, in terms of seniority list, one Shri Agam Prasad, Shri Arbind Kumar Baldev Prasad, Shri Vijay Kumar Sinha and Shri Pramod Kumar are at serial no.1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively. The Principal Secretary has recommended the case of the writ petitioner for grant of promotion based upon the consideration made by the Department Promotion Committee from the year 2008 and has also concurred. However, so far as the request made by the writ petitioner that till the clearance of roster of the 4th post, the other three persons may also not be granted promotion has not been accepted on the ground that since the writ petitioner was at serial no.4 in the seniority list and the three from the top even if will be granted promotion, the writ petitioner will not be adversely affected. For ready reference, the extract of the order passed by the Principal Secretary of the Department is being referred as under: (iii) Subsequent thereto, the 4th post was cleared and accordingly, the case of the appellant was referred before the Member Board of Revenue for its consideration. The Member Board of Revenue proceeding over the promotion committee has found the writ petitioner fit to be promoted against the 4th post but the 4th post since was not available, as such, recommendation was made, so far as the writ petitioner was concerned, to post him as Electrical Inspector by giving chare of the said post. So far as the monetary benefit is concerned, decision was recommendation to be taken with the advice of the Finance Department. For ready reference, the extract of the minutes of the promotion committee is being referred as under: The writ petitioner joined and started discharging his duties. So far as the monetary benefit is concerned, decision was recommendation to be taken with the advice of the Finance Department. For ready reference, the extract of the minutes of the promotion committee is being referred as under: The writ petitioner joined and started discharging his duties. (iv) The Energy Department of the State of Jharkhand then came out with the notification dated 24.01.2011 granting regular promotion to the post of Executive Engineer w.e.f. 27.06.2008, the day when the writ petitioner took charge of the post of Electrical Executive Engineer in in-charge capacity. The concerned department again came out with the notification in the name of the Governor of the State on 30.12.2015 by modifying the order dated 24.01.2011 of granting promotion on substantive capacity to the post of Executive Engineer w.e.f. 27.06.2008 with a further modification that the writ petitioner will be entitled for the actual benefit w.e.f. 24.01.2011. The question of denial of monetary benefit from 27.06.2008 to 24.01.2011 has been raised on the ground of its arbitrariness and irrationality. Objection has been raised on behalf of the State regarding applicability of the provision of Rule 58 and 103 of the Jharkhand Service Code. Rule 103 although speaks that in a case of pay of a Government servant appointed by the State Government to hold substantively, as a temporary measure, or to officiate in, two or more independent post at one time shall be regulated as per the condition stipulated therein from (a) to (c). Likewise, Rule 58 speaks that subject to any exceptions specifically made in these rules and to the provisions of clause (a) of this rule, a Government servant shall begin to draw the pay and allowance attached to his tenure of a post with effect from the date on which he assumed the duties of that post, and shall cease to draw them as soon as he ceases to discharge those duties. 19. Herein, it is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was posted on substantive post as Assistant Engineer in addition to the aforesaid charge he was also directed to discharging duty as Electrical Inspector equivalent to Electrical Executive Engineer. 20. 19. Herein, it is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was posted on substantive post as Assistant Engineer in addition to the aforesaid charge he was also directed to discharging duty as Electrical Inspector equivalent to Electrical Executive Engineer. 20. The State on the aforesaid ground is taking the reason for denial of the monetary benefit that when the writ petitioner is holding the substantive post of Assistant Engineer and in addition thereto, he was directed to discharge the duty of the higher post of Electrical Inspector (Electrical Executive Engineer) and hence, in view of the provision of Rule 103 of the Service, he will not be entitled for the monetary benefit for the aforesaid period. 21. Likewise, Rule 58 has also been taken aid of thereof by raising the issue that the implication of Rule 58 will be that the pay scale attached to the substantive post will only be admissible. 22. We are not in dispute about the statutory provision but herein, it is to be considered by this Court that: Whether the provision of Rule 58 or Rule 103 will be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case if the laches lies on the part of the State authority in denying the promotion in favour of the writ petitioner. Further, it is the State authority who have not cleared the roster which is exclusively the domain of the State Government. 23. The law is well settled that the wrong doer cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kusheshwar Prasad Singh Vrs. State of Bihar and Ors., (2007) 11 SCC 447 , wherein at para-14, it has been laid down by making reference of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mrutunjay Pani Vrs. Narmada Bala Sasmal, reported in AIR 1961 SC 1353 , wherein an obligation is cast on a party and if he commits a breach of such obligation, he cannot be permitted to take advantage of such situation. This is based on the Latin maxim commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet (no party can take undue advantage of his own wrong). The said proposition has also been discussed in detail by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Indore Development Authority Vrs. This is based on the Latin maxim commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet (no party can take undue advantage of his own wrong). The said proposition has also been discussed in detail by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Indore Development Authority Vrs. Shailendra and Ors., (2018) 2 SCC 412 as would be evident from para-143 and 167 by quoting the judgment rendered in the case of Mrutunjay Pani Vrs. Narmada Bala Sasmal (supra), that no litigant can take the benefit of his own wrong. The doctrine commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet means convenience cannot accrue to a party from his own wrong. 24. Here, in the instant case, it is the admitted case of the State as per the pleading made in the writ petition that the writ petitioner was found to be eligible for promotion to the post of Electrical Inspector on completion of 10 years along with other three, namely, Shri Agam Prasad, Shri Arbind Kumar Baldev Prasad, Shri Vijay Kumar Sinha. 25. The case of the writ petitioner fell for consideration before the Principal Secretary of the Department but decision was not taken which compelled the writ petitioner to file writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3716 of 2012 and based upon the said direction, the Principal Secretary of the Department has taken decision considering the writ petitioner to be eligible to hold the post of Electrical Inspector (Electrical Executive Engineer) but the Principal Secretary came out with the decision that the 4th post for which the writ petitioner was eligible cannot be filled up due to want of roster clearance. The Secretary has also recommended that since the writ petitioner is at serial no.4, hence, the three senior most Assistant Engineers in the seniority list if would be granted promotion, no prejudice will be caused to the writ petitioner. 26. The Secretary has also recommended that since the writ petitioner is at serial no.4, hence, the three senior most Assistant Engineers in the seniority list if would be granted promotion, no prejudice will be caused to the writ petitioner. 26. The said opinion was finally accepted by the promotion committee headed by the Member Board of Revenue, in its meeting dated 22.08.2013 along with other three, namely, Shri Agam Prasad, Shri Arbind Kumar Baldev Prasad, Shri Vijay Kumar Sinha, the three co-employees had been granted promotion, but had not granted promotion to the 4th post since was not having roster clearance, therefore, the writ petitioner was not granted promotion on substantive capacity, as such, the committee has recommended on the basis of the eligibility of the writ petitioner as also due to the laches on the part of the State authority in not clearing the roster has recommended for posting in in-charge capacity to the post of Electrical Inspector (Electrical Executive Engineer). 27. The State again came out with an order on 30.12.2015 modifying the notification dated 24.01.2011 granting promotion to the writ petitioner w.e.f. 27.06.2008, i.e., the day from which the writ petitioner was recommended by the duly constituted Promotion Committee as would appear from the extract thereof as referred above. 28. This Court, on the basis of the aforesaid admitted fact, is of the view that once the Departmental Promotion Committee has found the writ petitioner eligible and accordingly, recommendation has also been made by it, But, due to want of roster clearance, the writ petitioner was recommended to be given the higher post in in-charge capacity. 29. It is, thus, clear that due to want of roster clearance, the writ petitioner was denied from his rightful claim for being promoted to the higher post of Electrical Inspector (Electrical Executive Engineer) even then, the writ petitioner was eligible as per the recommendation which was the reason for his posting in in-charge capacity. The roster clearance is the exclusive domain of the State Government. The State ought to have placed the case of all the four aspirants by clearing roster of all the four posts, but, the same has not been done and hence, it is the State due to whose fault the rightful claim of the writ petitioner was denied. 30. The roster clearance is the exclusive domain of the State Government. The State ought to have placed the case of all the four aspirants by clearing roster of all the four posts, but, the same has not been done and hence, it is the State due to whose fault the rightful claim of the writ petitioner was denied. 30. The State when cleared the roster and if the promotion was granted on substantive post from 27.06.2008 basis upon the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee then why the salary from 27.06.2008 will be denied. 31. If the salary from 27.06.2008 will be denied of the pay scale attached to the higher post then it will be clear cut discrimination of the case of the writ petitioner with the case of the other three co-employees who have been granted promotion on the basis of the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee without any fault lying on the part of the writ petitioner. 32. The State has committed wrong and now the State wants to take the advantage of its own wrong which is not permissible as per the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases referred hereinabove. 33. This Court, after having discussed the factual aspect as above, is of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the provision as contained either under Rule 58 or Rule 103 of the Jharkhand Service Code are not applicable since it is not a case where the arears of difference of salary is being claimed by virtue of additional charge rather such claim is based upon the laches committed on the part of the State in not clearing the roster due to which the rightful claim of the writ petitioner was denied during the relevant period when other co-engineers similarly situated were granted promotion. 34. Article 14 is very much clear that there cannot be any classification said to be unreasonable. If the salary for the aforesaid period from 27.06.2008 will not be granted then the same according to our considered view, will be subjecting the writ petitioner to hostile discrimination that too for no fault of his own. 35. 34. Article 14 is very much clear that there cannot be any classification said to be unreasonable. If the salary for the aforesaid period from 27.06.2008 will not be granted then the same according to our considered view, will be subjecting the writ petitioner to hostile discrimination that too for no fault of his own. 35. So far as the ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant-State about the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 162 of 2014 is concerned, the same, according to our considered view is not applicable since the factual aspect as was involved in the said case is quite different to that of the present one. 36. This Court, after having discussed the factual aspect along with the legal position as above and coming to the order impugned, is of the view that the finding of the learned Single Judge holding the writ petitioner entitled for the salary for the post of Electrical Executive Engineer from 27.06.2008, cannot be said to suffer from any error as per the detailed discussion made hereinabove. 37. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and stands dismissed. 38. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.