IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.237 of 2008 RAMJEE PRASAD KASERA Son of Late Madan Lal Kasera, resident of Mohalla Chowk, Patna City, P.S. Chowk, Patna City, District Patna. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation, B.M.P. 5 Campus, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation, B.M.P. 5, Campus, Patna- 14. 4. The Accounts Officer, Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation, B.M.P. 5 Campus, Patna- 14. ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Birju Prasad. For the Respondent No. 2 & 4: Mr. Prasoon Sinha ------------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------------ Dated, the 20th October, 2008. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer the appellant as “the petitioner”. On 17th March, 1975 the petitioner joined the post of Steno Typist in the Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation Department (for short “Corporation”). He was given Junior Selection Grade in the Steno Typist cadre with effect from 1st April, 1981. He came to be promoted to the post of Personal Assistant with effect from 4th March, 1982. By an order dated 9th February, 1993 he has been given promotion to the post of Senior Personal Assistant in the pay - 2 - scale of Rs.2000-3500 with effect from 5th March, 1988. That the petitioner has been paid the scale of Senior Personal Assistant from the month of February, 1993 is not in dispute. His grievance is that although he is entitled to the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 from 5th March, 1988, the date on which he has been given promotion to the post of Senior Personal Assistant, yet that pay scale has not been given from that date. 2. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. He observed that promotion to the post of Senior Personal Assistant has been given from 5th March, 1988 as the post of Senior Personal Assistant had fell vacant from that date. He held that the retrospective date of promotion to the petitioner is notional and that does not entitle him to the salary of Senior Personal Assistant from 5th March, 1988. 3. Except a bald statement by the petitioner that he has been working as Senior Personal Assistant since 5th March, 1988, no material has been placed on record that may support his statement. As a matter of fact, the Corporation has denied that the petitioner discharged the duty of Senior Personal Assistant with effect from 5th March, 1988. In the enquiry instituted to examine whether promotion to the petitioner to the post of Senior Personal Assistant was valid or not, it was found that the petitioner had not discharged the duties of Senior Personal Assistant from 5th March, 1988. Even if we do not accept the finding recorded in that enquiry that promotion given to the petitioner with effect from 5th March, 1988 was illegal; the - 3 - question is, irrespective of whether the petitioner worked and discharged the duties of Senior Personal Assistant or not, should he still be given the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 with effect from 5th March, 1988. The order dated 9th February, 1993 whereby the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Senior Personal Assistant does not specifically say that such promotion is notional but from the facts and circumstances that have come on record, the only inference that can be drawn is that the promotion to the petitioner with retrospective date is notional. It was not difficult for the petitioner to establish by placing on record some material that, in fact, he discharged the duties of Senior Personal Assistant from 5th March, 1988 but there is not a single document on record which may lead us to believe that the petitioner, in fact, worked as Senior Personal Assistant. Merely, because by order dated 9th February, 1993, he has been given promotion to the post of Senior Personal Assistant with effect from 5th March, 1988, he would not be entitled to the salary of Senior Personal Assistant unless it was found that he discharged the duties of Senior Personal Assistant from that date. The Single Judge rightly observed that applying the principles of „no work, no pay‟ the petitioner was not entitled to actual salary of Senior Personal Assistant with effect from 5th March, 1988. 4. Consideration of the matter by the Single Judge is proper justifying no interference by us in the Letters Patent jurisdiction. - 4 - 5. Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to cost. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J AMIN/-