JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondent-State of Jharkhand to grant promotion to the petitioner to the post of Deputy Secretary with effect from 24.6.2013 and further to the post of Joint Secretary with effect from 27.7.2018. The petitioner has also prayed for the grant of all consequential benefits. In addition to the above, the petitioner prays that the notification dated 3.10.2019 (Annexure-7) and the notification dated 17.11.2020 (Annexure-8), by which he has been granted notional promotion to the post of Additional Collector/Deputy Secretary and to the post of Joint Secretary, respectively, be quashed as they suffer from gross illegality and arbitrariness. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner, after qualifying for the 37th Bihar Public Service Examination, joined service in the year 1993. After the bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the petitioner was allotted the Jharkhand cadre, and he joined his services in the State of Jharkhand in 2003. The otherwise unblemished career of the petitioner was adversely affected when an order of minor punishment was passed against him vide order dated 20.2.2013. The petitioner assailed the same before this Court by filing a writ petition, which was registered as W.P.(S) No. 4548 of 2013. This Court, vide its order dated 8.03.2016, set aside the punishment order dated 20.02.2013 and quashed the disciplinary proceeding. The respondent-authority accepted the order of this Court and, vide order dated 19.08.2016, recalled its order of punishment. 4. Learned counsel had also submitted that after recalling the punishment order dated 20.02.2013, the respondent-authorities, acting illegally, issued a fresh show-cause to the petitioner on 27.08.2016. The petitioner immediately filed another writ petition, W.P.(S) No. 5823 of 2016. This Court, after considering the entire case, was pleased to set aside the show cause dated 27.08.2016 vide order dated 5.07.2017. It has been further submitted that the petitioner is placed at serial number 664; however, despite orders passed by this Court quashing the order of punishment, persons below the petitioner on the gradation list were promoted vide notification dated 24.06.2013. Persons junior to the petitioner were also granted promotion to the post of Joint Secretary on 25.7.2018. It has been further submitted that the petitioner is placed at serial number 664; however, despite orders passed by this Court quashing the order of punishment, persons below the petitioner on the gradation list were promoted vide notification dated 24.06.2013. Persons junior to the petitioner were also granted promotion to the post of Joint Secretary on 25.7.2018. It was also submitted that the respondent-authorities granted notional promotion to the post of Additional Collector/Deputy Secretary with effect from 24.06.2013 to the petitioner vide notification dated 3.10.2019 but without financial benefits. Thus, the petitioner was thereafter granted promotion to the post of Joint Secretary vide notification dated 17.11.2020, but again financial benefit was not granted from the date of eligibility, i.e., the date from which his juniors were granted promotion – 25.7.2018. 5. During the argument, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that during the pendency of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has been granted promotion to the post of Additional Secretary vide notification dated 26.6.2023, with effect from 17.11.2021. The notification is produced before this Court, which was taken on record. In crux, he had contended that the petitioner has been deprived of financial benefit in the scale of Deputy Secretary from 24.6.2013 and in the scale of Joint Secretary from 27.7.2018. Further, on promotion to the post of additional secretary, there is one additional increment which is given, which, because of the non-grant of scale in the Joint Secretary since 2018, has resulted in lower pay in the post of Additional Secretary. This action is having civil consequences which suffer from gross arbitrariness and violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. Ld. Counsel had also argued that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted once persons junior to him have been granted promotion. He reiterated that once the punishment order was quashed, the effect would go to the date of the punishment order itself. The principle of ‘no work, no pay’ would not apply to the case at hand, as it was the respondent-authorities who prevented the petitioner from working at the post to which he was otherwise entitled. 7. He reiterated that once the punishment order was quashed, the effect would go to the date of the punishment order itself. The principle of ‘no work, no pay’ would not apply to the case at hand, as it was the respondent-authorities who prevented the petitioner from working at the post to which he was otherwise entitled. 7. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the petitioner retired from services in September 2022, and considering that it was the respondent’s illegal action of awarding minor punishment and further inaction on part of the respondent by complying with the order of this Court in true letter and spirit that led to the delay in the petitioner’s promotion. He contended that even after recall of the punishment order, the respondent kept the matter with respect to the petitioner pending for years together, which incapacitated the petitioner in discharging his duty on the promotional post of Deputy Secretary and Joint Secretary from the date of his eligibility. Thus, the petitioner will not be hit by the principle of ‘no work no pay’. 8. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel representing the respondent vehemently disputes the arguments of the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner has no right to promotion but has right ‘only to be considered for promotion’. It is submitted that extending the benefits to the petitioner from the date when the persons junior to the petitioner were promoted would amount to giving retrospective effect to the judgment. The Ld. Counsel representing the respondent-State has placed heavy reliance on Rule 58 of the Jharkhand (Bihar) Service Code and Rule 74 of the Jharkhand Finance Rules to submit that even if the argument of the petitioner is accepted, no benefit could be extended contrary to law. Lastly, by placing reliance on the counter-affidavit dated 8.12.2021, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent-state has submitted that the petitioner’s Annual Confidential Report was not upto the mark, and as such, the petitioner was not promoted to the post of Joint Secretary in 2018, but rather in the year 2020, only when the petitioner was deemed fit for promotion considering his Annual Confidential Report. 9. Counsel for the respondent-state has submitted that the petitioner’s Annual Confidential Report was not upto the mark, and as such, the petitioner was not promoted to the post of Joint Secretary in 2018, but rather in the year 2020, only when the petitioner was deemed fit for promotion considering his Annual Confidential Report. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent-State also submitted that the notification dated 26.6.2023 shows that the respondent-State has been acting in a diligent manner, as the petitioner has been given a promotion, along with all benefits, to the post of Additional Secretary from the date of his entitlement, i.e., 17.11.2021. 10. In reply to the arguments of the state, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner rejoins by submitting that Rule 58 of the Jharkhand (Bihar) Service Code and Rule 74 of the Jharkhand Finance Rules are based on the principle of ‘no pay, no work’. However, the same would not apply to the disadvantage of the petitioner, when it was the respondent- authorities themselves owing to which the petitioner could not work on the post to which he was otherwise eligible. 11 . Heard the parties and considered the submissions made at the bar and the documents on record. The following issues are carved out for the purpose of adjudication of the instant case:- a. Whether the petitioner has a right to be promoted from the date when his juniors were granted promotion, taking into consideration the punishment order and the orders passed by this Court in WP(S) 4548 of 2013 and WP(S) 5823 of 2016? b. Whether Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 74 of the Jharkhand (Bihar) Finance Rules prevent the petitioner from claiming financial and other benefits for the period prior to the grant of promotion? 12. Coming to the first issue, the facts narrated hereinabove that the petitioner was appointed to the services in the year 1993, and after the bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the petitioner was allotted the State of Jharkhand, where he joined his services in the year 2003. The admitted facts of the case are that persons junior to the petitioner were promoted to the posts of Deputy Secretary and Joint Secretary on 24.06.2013 and 25.07.2018, respectively. The Ld. The admitted facts of the case are that persons junior to the petitioner were promoted to the posts of Deputy Secretary and Joint Secretary on 24.06.2013 and 25.07.2018, respectively. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has a right to promotion when the persons junior to him were promoted and further that the order of punishment and the fresh show cause notice were set aside by this Court, holding it to be illegal. It is the case of the respondent-State that at the relevant time when the persons junior to the petitioner were granted promotion, the punishment order dated 20.2.2013 and the show cause dated 27.08.2016 were in effect. The order of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4548 of 2013 and W.P.(S) No. 5823 of 2016 came into effect later only. 13. This Court, in the case of Daya Ram v. State of Jharkhand, W.P. (S) No. 4276 of 2024, has held that once a junior person is promoted, a right accrues in favour of the petitioner. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “5. In view of the fair submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that though the promotion is not a right of an employee, but the right of consideration is accrued when junior to the employee concerned has been considered for promotion….” 14. Now coming to the question of the punishment order dated 20.2.2013 and the fresh show cause dated 27.8.2016 issued against the petitioner; this Court set aside the punishment order dated 20.2.2013 in the order dated 8.3.2016 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4548 of 2013. This Court finds it necessary to quote the operative portion of the order. The same is as under:- “6. On the cumulative effect of facts and reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order of punishment dated 20.02.2013 being not legally sustainable is, hereby, quashed and set aside.” From bare perusal of the above-mentioned order, it is evident that the punishment order dated 20.02.2013 was set aside on the ground that it was not legally tenable. 15. The fresh show cause dated 27.08.2016 was also quashed vide order dated 05.07.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5823 of 2016. 15. The fresh show cause dated 27.08.2016 was also quashed vide order dated 05.07.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5823 of 2016. The relevant portion of this judgment is reproduced as under:- “6…Therefore, issuance of the show cause notice dated 27.8.2016 warrants interference by this Court on the same is set at naught to meet the ends of justice.” 16. The aforesaid orders clearly establish that the order of punishment dated 20.02.2013 and the fresh show cause notice dated 27.08.2016 were ‘set at naught’. It is a trite law that once a punishment order is interfered with, the effect of such order goes to the date when the punishment order was passed. Reference is made to the case of Upendra Kumar Bhagat v. The High Court of Judicature at Patna through its Registrar General, 2025 (2) PLJR 321 . The effect is always retrospective, unless it is made operative in a prospective manner. Thus, once the order dated 20.2.2013 and the show cause dated 27.8.2016 were set aside, they cannot be given any bearing on the issue of promotion. 17. At this stage, this Court finds it relevant to address the issue pertaining to the Annual Confidential Report pertaining to the petitioner with the contention that it was not upto the mark. However, in the supplementary counter- affidavit dated 21.10.2020, the respondent-state has submitted that the petitioner could not be considered for promotion as the ACR of the petitioner was incomplete. 18. This Court, in the case of Daya Ram v. State of Jharkhand, W.P. (S) No. 4276 of 2024, has already held that non-consideration of the petitioner on the ground of incomplete ACR is not tenable in the eyes of law. The employee is not responsible for the preparation of his ACR. If his ACR is not completed, the same cannot be said to his fault. In any view of the matter, if there is any defect in the ACR, to the disadvantage of the petitioner, it needs to be communicated to the petitioner. 19. Thus, in attending facts of this case, it is held that the petitioner was illegally deprived of being promoted, as there exists a right to be promoted on the date when his juniors were promoted. 20. The next issue pertains to the benefits to which the petitioner would be entitled. The Ld. 19. Thus, in attending facts of this case, it is held that the petitioner was illegally deprived of being promoted, as there exists a right to be promoted on the date when his juniors were promoted. 20. The next issue pertains to the benefits to which the petitioner would be entitled. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent state has vehemently opposed the grant of any financial benefit to the petitioner in terms of Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 74 of the Jharkhand (Bihar) Finance Rules and the “no pay, no work” principle. This Court finds it necessary to quote the relevant rules relied upon by the State: - “Rule 58: (a) Subject to any exceptions specifically made in these rules and to the provisions of clause (b) of this rule, a Government servant shall begin to draw the pay and allowances attached to his tenure of a post with effect from the date on which he assumes the duties of that post, and shall cease to draw them as soon as he ceased to discharge those duties." "Rule 74. All authorities which are competent to sanction revision of pay or the grant of concession to Government servants should bear in mind that retrospective effect should not be given to financial sanctions, except in exceptional circumstances, without the special approval of Government." 21. This Court, in the case of Singrai Tuti v. State of Jharkhand, W.P. (S) No. 4023 of 2024, placing reliance on several pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Division Benches of this Court, has held that the said rules would not come to the aid of the State when there are no latches on the part of the petitioner. In the case at hand, this Court has already returned a finding that the petitioner was not at fault. The order of punishment dated 20.2.2013 and the fresh show cause notice dated 27.8.2016 were already set aside by this Court. Further, as juniors of the petitioner were granted promotion, there was no occasion for the State to have kept the promotion of the petitioner pending only to grant it at much later dates, i.e., on 3.10.2019 to the post of the Deputy Secretary (Annexure-7) and 17.11.2020 to the post of Joint Secretary. 22. Further, as juniors of the petitioner were granted promotion, there was no occasion for the State to have kept the promotion of the petitioner pending only to grant it at much later dates, i.e., on 3.10.2019 to the post of the Deputy Secretary (Annexure-7) and 17.11.2020 to the post of Joint Secretary. 22. As such, this Court is having no hesitation in holding that the petitioner is entitled to all financial and consequential benefits from the date when the persons junior to the petitioner were granted promotion, i.e. 24.6.2013 and 27.7.2018. 23. In light of the above discussion and finding, the following directions are issued:- a. The notification dated 3.10.2019 is set aside to the extent that its grants only notional promotion to the petitioner with effect from 24.6.2013; b. The notification dated 17.11.2020 is set aside, as it grants promotion and benefits to the petitioner from the date of date of notification and not from the date of his eligibility; c. The petitioner is granted promotion along with all financial and consequential benefits to the post of Deputy Secretary with effect from 24.6.2013, i.e., the date on which juniors to the petitioner were granted promotion; d. The petitioner shall be entitled for all financial and consequential benefits to the post of Joint Secretary with effect from 27.7.2018, i.e., the date on which juniors to the petitioner were granted promotion; e. The petitioner shall be entitled for the pay scale considering his scale of Joint Secretary since 27.7.2018 and based on the same additional increment on the date of his promotion as Additional Secretary; f. Since petition has superannuated since September, 2022, all benefits of revision in pay shall be taken into consideration for computation of retiral benefits including revision of pension and the arrears towards difference in retiral benefit; g. The State is directed to grant and release all benefits due to the petitioner, in terms of the above direction within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to 6% simple interest from the date of entitlement till the date of actual payment. 24. As a result, the instant writ petition stands allowed. Pending I.As., if any, are closed.