ORDER : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Grievance of the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition is that though he has been promoted with effect from 30.4.2015 on the post of Lecturer (Hindi) and during pendency of the present Writ Petition, by Order dated 10.4.2017, also he was granted retrospective promotion with effect from 29.6.2010, but the consequential/monetary benefits arising therefrom to which he is entitled for have not been given to him and therefore seeks for an appropriate direction to the Respondent authorities in this regard. 2. It is the case of the Respondent State that the Petitioner has been promoted on 30.4.2015 and his seniority was fixed with effect from 29.6.2010 by Order dated 10.4.2017 but since the Petitioner had approached this Court on 1.9.2014 firstly by filing WPS No.4602/2014, which was decided on 4.9.2014, the Petitioner therefore will not be entitled for the monetary benefits for the period from 1.9.2014 to 30.4.2015 on which the promotion was actually granted to him. 3. I have heard learned Counsels appearing on either side, considered their rival submissions and also perused the record of the case with utmost care and circumspection. 4. Admittedly, the Petitioner on the previous occasion had filed WPS No.4602/2014 claiming promotion to the post of Lecturer (Hindi) with effect from 1.7.2010 i.e., from the date when his junior was promoted, with all consequential benefits. This Court by Order dated 4.9.2014 disposed of the said Writ Petition directing the Respondent State to consider the case of the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Respondent State, after considering the case of the Petitioner, promoted him to the post of Lecturer (Hindi) by Order dated 30.4.2015 (Annexure P-7). However, the Petitioner was not granted seniority with effect from 29.6.2010/1.7.2010. This led to the Petitioner’s filing the present Writ Petition to which the Respondent State has also filed their return along with a copy of Order dated 10.4.2017 (Annexure R-1) showing that the Petitioner has been granted seniority with retrospective effect from 29.6.2010. 5. However, the Petitioner was not granted seniority with effect from 29.6.2010/1.7.2010. This led to the Petitioner’s filing the present Writ Petition to which the Respondent State has also filed their return along with a copy of Order dated 10.4.2017 (Annexure R-1) showing that the Petitioner has been granted seniority with retrospective effect from 29.6.2010. 5. Now, the claim of the Petitioner is that the other consequential/monetary benefits and arrears of salary have not been given to him and for which learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of State of Kerala and Others v. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai, (2007) 6 SCC 524 , in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court have upheld the decision of the High Court for grant of back wages from the date of filing petition instead of from due date of promotion, and pertinently observed in paragraph 5 as under:- “5. However, so far as present case is concerned, as per directions given by the Court, petitioner's case was considered and it was found that persons junior to him were appointed and he was wrongly denied. Therefore, the petitioner was promoted from retrospective effect i.e. 15.9.1961 but he was not paid the benefit of promotion in terms of arrears of salary. Therefore, he approached the Court and learned Single Judge did not give him the monetary benefit of the promotional post from retrospective effect in terms of arrears of salary. In the review application, the benefit was given from the date he filed O.P. No. 585 of 1975 i.e. 15.6.1972. This appears to be reasonable. The petitioner did not approach the Court for the back wages from 15.9.1961 but he filed a petition dated 15.6.1972 and the Court granted the benefit from the date of filing of the petition before the Court i.e. 15.6.1972. The incumbent in the meanwhile has retired on 31.7.1980. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the view taken by the High Court appears to be justified and there is no ground to interfere in it.” 6. The principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai (supra) have been followed with approval in the matter of Gowramma C. (Dead) by LRs v. Manager (Personnel), Hindustan Aeronautical Limited and Another, (2022) 11 SCC 794 . 7. The principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai (supra) have been followed with approval in the matter of Gowramma C. (Dead) by LRs v. Manager (Personnel), Hindustan Aeronautical Limited and Another, (2022) 11 SCC 794 . 7. Relying upon the principles of law laid down in E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai (supra), since, in the instant case, admittedly, the Petitioner’s first writ petition i.e., WPS No.4602/2014, claiming promotion to the post of Lecturer (Hindi) from 1.7.2010 with all consequential/monetary benefits was filed on 1.9.2014 and ultimately it has been granted with effect from 30.4.2015, the Petitioner will be entitled for the monetary benefits for the period from 1.9.2014 to 29.4.2015 as there was no fault of the Petitioner in his non-promotion. 8. Accordingly, it is ordered that the Petitioner should be paid all the monetary benefits falling with effect from 1.9.2014 till 29.4.2015 within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, failing which the Petitioner would also be entitled for 9% simple interest thereon. 9. The Writ Petition stands allowed to the extent indicated herein above. 10. There shall be no order as to costs.