1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.

2. It is not necessary to give all the facts in detail for the purpose of deciding the simple issue raised on behalf of the appellant that once he was granted promotion to three different posts in the year 2005 but with effect from earlier dates, it was wrong for the authorities to treat and describe the promotions as notional rather they should have paid actual monetary benefits on account of such promotion because the promotion orders clearly show that juniors had been promoted from the earlier dates and that entitled the appellant for promotion with retrospective effect.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Paras Nath Prasad vs. The State of Bihar and Others, 1990(2) PLJR 248 in support of his claim for monetary benefits since the date of promotions which have been presently given to him on notional basis only. That judgment in paragraph 19 has considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Alappat Narana Menon vs. State of Kerala, 1977 Vol. II S.L.R. 656.

4. On the other hand learned counsel for t