ORDER : (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.) 1. By filing this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellants-respondents, the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary and others, have assailed the correctness of the order dated 19.10.2020 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.458 of 2020, whereby the petitioner-respondent’s writ petition was allowed and a direction was given to give promotion to the petitioner-respondent from the date his juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits. 2. It is not disputed at this stage that the petitioner-respondent’s case for promotion was not considered because the ACRs were not sent before the Departmental Promotion Committee. That is the fault of the department, petitioner was not at fault, thus, the order passed by learned Single Judge has correctly been passed. 3. Learned counsel for the State-appellants submits that the petitioner-respondent is not entitled to consequential benefits like salary for the period from the date of notional promotion and is entitled from the actual date of appointment, in view of Rule 58(a) of Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, which reads as follows: - 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 ceases to discharge those duties. 4. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Another versus Tarsem Lal and Others reported in (2006) 10 SCC 145 , wherein the Supreme Court took into consideration para 228 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, which reads as under: - “228. Erroneous promotions.-(1) Sometimes due to administrative errors, staff are overlooked for promotion to higher grades which could either be on account of or wrong assignment of relative seniority of the eligible candidate at the time of ordering promotion or some other reasons. Broadly, loss of seniority due to the administrative errors can be of two types: (i) where a person has not been promoted at all because of administrative error, and (ii) where a person has been promoted but not on the date from which he would have been promoted but for the administrative error. Each such case should be dealt with on its merits. Each such case should be dealt with on its merits. The staff who have lost promotion on account of administrative error should on promotion be assigned correct seniority vis-à-vis their juniors already promoted, irrespective of the date of promotion. Pay in the higher grade on promotion may be fixed pro forma at the proper time. The enhanced pay may be allowed from the date of actual promotion. No arrears on this account shall be payable as he did not actually shoulder the duties and responsibilities of the higher posts.” 5. Thus, on the basis of such Rule, the Supreme Court has held that as there is specific Rule that persons given promotion from an earlier date than his actual assuming of charge is not entitled to financial benefit. Further there is no Rule in the Jharkhand Service Code and the aforesaid judgment cannot be relied to set aside that portion of the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge, whereby consequential benefits have been granted to the respondent-petitioner. Moreover, a person is not granted the back wages or salary when he is not inclined to discharge the duty. It is not the case of the State-appellants that the respondent-petitioner was not willing to work for the period. It is for the laches on the part of the authorities, his case for promotion was not granted and only on intervention of the Court, his promotion has been given from the date from which his juniors were promoted. 6. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in this Letters Patent Appeal. This Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Urgent certified copy of this order shall be issued as per the Rules.