IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15936 of 2007 Md.Nooruddin, S/o- Md. Ramzan, resident of 36 shantikunj, Harun Nagar Sector-2, P.S.-Phulwarisarif, District-Patna. ……… Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 6. Accountant General, Bihar. …….. Respondents. ----------- 03 18.02.2009 The petitioner retired from the Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar on 31.03.2000. As per Annexure-1 dated 01.11.1996, petitioner amongst other were granted promotion to the post Superintending Engineer with effect from 01.02.1996, but as per the said notification itself the monetary benefits were to be given from the date they assumed charge, pursuant to the notification as such. This position was subsequently clarified by Memo No. 1490 dated 18.06.2005, where the date now has been given as that 30.07.1997, when petitioner has assumed current charge of the said post prior to notification of the promotion. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that as promotion was given with effect from 01.02.1996, the due date for promotion, petitioner was entitled to monetary benefits from 01.02.1996 itself and merely because the State delayed in grant of promotion he could not be deprived of his monetary benefits. State has filed a counter affidavit and has relied on a 2 circular issued by the Finance Department, wherein following the principle of no work no pay, it has been held that monetary benefits would be given only from the time they start discharging the functions of the said post. Having considered the matter, the stand of the State cannot be accepted. The consequence of accepting the stand of the State that employees denied their due promotion indefinitely and thus State would get away with denying monetary benefits to its employees indefinitely that cannot be permitted. If promotion was due on 1st February, 1996 then merely because it was delayed because of bureaucratic reasons, petitioner cannot be deprived of his monetary benefits from that day. State submits that because they committed a mistake in not giving due promotion at due time, the petitioner losses his right to receive monetary benefits, as consequence of timely promotion. This cannot be permitted. One cannot take benefit of its own fault and equally true is that because of once fault other cannot suffer. Thus, I have left with no option but to direct that the monetary benefit to the petitioner is paid from 01.02.1996 in respect of his promotion as a Superintending Engineer and all calculations have to be made accordingly. The monetary benefit would accordingly be paid to the petitioner within two months of the petitioner producing a copy of this order before the Joint Secretary of the Department concerned. The writ petition thus stands disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)