JUDGMENT : SYAM KUMAR V.M., J. 1. This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 18.06.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.23765 of 2018. Appellant was the petitioner in the W.P. (C). 2. Appellant had filed the W.P.(C) contending that he, who is working as the Finance Officer in the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB), had been denied monetary benefits consequent to the notional promotion granted to him. Appellant's contentions in brief were as follows: Appellant had been promoted as the Assistant Finance Officer on 03.05.2008. Subsequently, upon completion of one year of service as Assistant Finance Officer, he became eligible for promotion as Finance Officer. However, the said promotion to which he was legally entitled was denied to him and two of the juniors were promoted as financial officers on 01.03.2011. After repeated representations pointing out the said anomaly, the respondents promoted the appellant as Financial Officer retrospectively with effect from 01.03.2011, but without monetary benefits. Since the nature of duties of the Assistant Finance Officer and the Finance Officer are the same, and as he had been discharging the duties of the Finance Officer from 03.05.2008 onwards, the appellant claimed that he is entitled to get all consequential benefits in the post of Finance Officer from 01.03.2011, and the denial of the same was illegal. Since the nature of duties of the Assistant Finance Officer and the Finance Officer are the same, and as he had been discharging the duties of the Finance Officer from 03.05.2008 onwards, the appellant claimed that he is entitled to get all consequential benefits in the post of Finance Officer from 01.03.2011, and the denial of the same was illegal. He thus filed the W.P.(C) seeking the following reliefs: “i) to issue a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate order or direction quashing Ext.P13 communication No.Estt.III/1613/2015 dated 17.01.2018 issued by the 1 st respondent as it is arbitrary and illegal; ii) to issue a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate order or direction quashing Ext.P15 communication No.Estt.III/1613/2015 dated 09.07.2018 issued by the 1 st respondent on behalf of the 2 nd respondent as it is arbitrary and void ; iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction to the respondents to give all consequential benefits attached to the post of Finance Officer with effect from 01.03.2011 since there is no change in the nature of duties of Assistant Finance Officer and Finance Officer ; iv) to declare that the petitioner is entitled to get all consequential benefits as Finance Officer with effect from 01.03.2011 since the petitioner has been discharging the duties of Finance Officer from 03.05.2008 even though his designation was Assistant Finance Officer ; v) to issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as is deemed just and necessary in the circumstances of the case.” 3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the W.P.(C), inter alia holding that there was no illegality or impropriety in the Board deciding to restrict the monetary benefits from the date of joining in the promoted post and that the petitioner had not made out any case warranting interference. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, this Writ Appeal is filed. 4. Heard Dr.K.P.Satheesan, Senior Advocate, for the appellant and Sri.M.K. Thankappan, Advocate, for the respondent KSEB. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the W.P.(C). It is contended that, as per the Rules that were in force during the relevant period, the Assistant Finance Officer, on completion of one year service, is eligible for promotion to the post of Finance Officer. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the W.P.(C). It is contended that, as per the Rules that were in force during the relevant period, the Assistant Finance Officer, on completion of one year service, is eligible for promotion to the post of Finance Officer. Since the appellant had been promoted as Assistant Finance Officer on 03.05.2008, he became eligible for promotion as Finance Officer on 02.05.2009. However, the said promotion was not given to the appellant in spite of the availability of vacancies. Realising this mistake, the same was sought to be rectified by the Board by notionally promoting the appellant as Finance Officer with effect from 01.03.2011. Taking note of the fact that the appellant had been discharging the duties of Finance Officer even before and after the promotion, he ought to have been granted the salary and other benefits from 01.03.2011 onwards. The denial in the said respect is discriminatory and illegal. The learned Single Judge had failed to take note of the same. It is contended that the principle of 'no pay, no work' mentioned by the learned Single Judge has no applicability insofar as the appellant was discharging the duties of the Finance Officer even before the promotion. The learned Senior Counsel thus sought to set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and to allow the Writ Petition. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the KSEB defended the judgment of the learned Single Judge and submitted that the same does not call for any interference. It is submitted that the appellant's contention that he was not given promotion despite eligibility and availability of vacancies is incorrect. The appellant had been sanctioned leave without allowance with effect from 22.07.2009, i.e. just after completion of one year of service in the post of AFO, and he went on leave without allowance (LWA) to take up a job in the private sector. During the course of his LWA, the Board issued a promotion order to the post of Finance Officer on 11.06.2010 and accordingly, 14 Assistant Finance Officers were promoted as Finance Officer. The promotion of the appellant was not deliberately denied by the board. Hence, the contention put forth by the appellant is misleading, and the learned Single Judge had properly taken note of the same. The promotion of the appellant was not deliberately denied by the board. Hence, the contention put forth by the appellant is misleading, and the learned Single Judge had properly taken note of the same. Even though the appellant was sanctioned the LWA for 5 years, he rejoined the service on 23.02.2011, after cancelling the unavailed portion of the leave. It is submitted that the appellant had not been denied promotion illegally, and he could not be included in the promotion list as he was not in the Board service at the time of the procedures being undertaken. However, the Board had considered his request positively and had effected notional promotion with retrospective effect from 01.03.2011. The duties and responsibilities of an Assistant Finance Officer and a Finance Officer are distinct and different, and hence, the appellant is eligible for monetary benefit only from the date of joining the post of Finance Officer. Had the appellant remained in the service of the Board during 06/2010 i.e., during the period of his LWA for taking up a job in the private sector, he ought to have been promoted to the post of Finance Officer as on 11.06.2010, when the other 14 Assistant Finance Officers, his seniors as well as juniors, were promoted as Finance Officers. It was thus due to the fault of the appellant himself that he could not be granted promotion on 11.06.2010. An employee can be promoted to the next cadre only if vacancies exist in the promoted post. As far as the KSEB is concerned, there are only 24 sanctioned posts of finance officers. Even if an employee has to do work of a more or less similar nature as that of the promoted post, as per the Rules, that employee cannot be promoted to that post that promotion post over and above the sanctioned number of posts. Hence, even if the duties discharged by the appellant are more or less similar to those of the Finance Officer, it cannot be treated as a ground to claim monetary benefits in the post of Finance Officer. Placing reliance on Rule 23 Part I KSR, the learned counsel submitted that the appellant is not entitled to get monetary benefits for the period till he actually joins the promoted post. 7. We have heard both sides in detail and have considered the respective contentions put forth. Placing reliance on Rule 23 Part I KSR, the learned counsel submitted that the appellant is not entitled to get monetary benefits for the period till he actually joins the promoted post. 7. We have heard both sides in detail and have considered the respective contentions put forth. The prayer in the W.P.(C) was to quash Ext.P13 dated 17.01.2018 and Ext.P15 dated 09.07.2018. A direction to grant all consequential benefits attached to the post of Finance Officer with effect from 01.03.2011 was also claimed. This was sought to be affirmed by stating that there is no change in the nature of the duties of the Assistant Finance Officer and Finance Officer. It is relevant to note here that it was vide Ext.P10 order dated 31.07.2017 that it was decided that the appellant shall be given notional promotion to the post of Finance Officer with retrospective effect from 01.03.2011. It had been specified in Ext.P10 itself that his pay will be fixed notionally with effect from 01.03.2011 in the cadre of Finance Officer and monetary benefit with effect from the date of joining in the promoted post. It is relevant to note that there is no challenge in the W.P.(C) as against Ext.P10, which is dated as early as 31.07.2017. Exts.P13 and P15, sought to be quashed in the W.P. (C), had been issued much later in furtherance of Ext.P10. Thus, the very sustainability of the prayers in the W.P.(C) without challenging Ext.P10 is precarious. Be that as it may, admittedly, the appellant was on LWA from 22.07.2009 and rejoined only on 23.02.2011. It is during the interregnum that the promotions were effected to the post of Finance Officer vide Ext.R1(a) dated 11.06.2010. Nevertheless, albeit late, vide Ext.P10, the appellant was granted promotion with effect from 01.03.2011, specifically stating that the monetary benefits will be applicable only from the date of joining service. We find merit in the contention put forth by the KSEB that the appellant had not been denied promotion and that he couldn’t be included in the promotion list as he was not in the board service at the relevant time when the procedures were underway. Further, it is the specific contention of the KSEB that the duties and responsibilities of the Assistant Finance Officer and Finance Officer are distinct and different. Nothing has been produced by the appellant to controvert the said contention of the Board. Further, it is the specific contention of the KSEB that the duties and responsibilities of the Assistant Finance Officer and Finance Officer are distinct and different. Nothing has been produced by the appellant to controvert the said contention of the Board. In the said facts and circumstances, the finding of the learned Single Judge that, admittedly, from 01.03.2011, the appellant never worked in the promoted post and that it was not a case where the Board denied the appellant a retrospective promotion cannot be termed as illegal or erroneous. The Writ Appeal fails and is dismissed.