IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.792 of 2009 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 5. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna ... Respondents/Appellants Versus 1. MD.NOORUDDIN, son of Md. Ramzan, resident of 36, Shanti Kunj, Harun Nagar, Sector-2, P.S. Phulwarisarif, District Patna ... Petitioner/ Respondent 2. The Accountant General, Bihar ... Performa respondent ----------- 7. 14.12.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. The controversy in the L.P.A. arises out of respondent- writ petitioner’s claim relating to the monetary benefits from 1.2.1996 i.e. the date of his promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. According to the appellants the respondent- writ petitioner had assumed charge on 13.7.1996 and the contention of the appellants before the learned Single Judge was that the writ petitioner was/ is entitled for monetary benefits only from the date of his assumption of charge and not from the date of promotion. Learned Govt. Pleader has also made more or less similar submissions and 2 has contended that since the respondent- writ petitioner had assumed charge of the post of Superintending Engineer on 13.7.1996, he was not entitled for monetary benefits as claimed by him from 1.2.1996 for the single reason that he had not discharged the work of the promotional post with effect from 1.2.1996. Learned counsel for the respondents- writ petitioner on the other hand has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Food Corporation of India vs. S.N.Nagarkar, reported in AIR 2002 SC 808, for supporting his submission that the respondent- writ petitioner is legally entitled to receive monetary benefit with effect from the date of his promotion. In our considered opinion from the facts of the case of Nagarkar (supra) it is clear that the same was not a notional promotion as in the case of the writ petitioner rather it was a case of regular promotion. Learned counsel for the State in this regard has correctly relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of 3 Union of India & anr. vs. Tarsem Lal & ors., reported in AIR 2007 SC 259, wherein the Apex Court has held that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of pay scale from the date of actual working and the principle of ‘no work no pay’ would apply also in the cases of promotion. Under the above circumstances, we do not find any relevance of the case law relied by the learned counsel for the respondent- writ petitioner. Thus relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tarsem Lal & ors. (supra) we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. It is however made clear that the monetary benefit to which the respondent- writ petitioner is entitled from 13.7.1996 must be paid, if not already paid, within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. (T.Meena Kumari,J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/