1. Petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Commercial Tax Department vide order dated 8.11.1989 (Annexure P-1). He was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade, 1. The said promotion order was challenged in O.A. No. 694 of 1990 by K.C. Desai & others before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Indore. Due to the pendency of O.A. before the Tribunal, the petitioner's name for promotion from the post of Assistant Grade I to the post of Assistant Superintendent was not considered however others were granted the promotions. In the circumstances, a grievance was raised by the petitioner in the said O.A. before the Tribunal and a prayer was made to direct the respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of Assistant Superintendent. The Tribunal vide order dated 12.10.2001 (Annexure P-2) made it clear that challenge to the petitioner's promotion to the post of Assistant Grade I will not come in the petitioner's way for consideration of his case for promotion to the higher post. In pursuance to the clarification made by the Tribunal, the respondents convened a review DPC and ordered for petitioner's promotion to the post of Assistant Superintendent w.e.f. 10.3.1993 vide order dated 11.6.2002 (Annexure P-3) issued by Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department of M.P. However the respondents denied monetary benefits of the said promotion for the period 10.3.1993 to 11.6.2002, on the principle of no work no pay.

2. The O.A. No. 694 of 1990 filed by K.C. Desai and others came up for consideration before this Court due to abolition of Tribunal. The said O.A. was re-numbered as W.P. No. 3704 of 2003. On 2.7.2004 the said writ petition was dismissed. After dismissal of the writ petition, the respondents again convened the review DPC for consideration of the petitioner's case for further promotion on the post of Superintendent w.e.f. 4.4.1997 the date when others were promoted and the petitioner was left out. On 10.9.2004, the petitioner was promoted from the post of Assistant Superintendent to the post of Superintendent w.e.f. 4.4.1997. However again he was denied the monetary benefits by applying the principle of no work no pay.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that on two occasions he has been superseded and was not promoted, though he was eligible for such promotions. He submits that without there being any fault on his part, the monetary benefits have been denied to him by wrong application of the principle of no work no pay. He submits that the principle of no work no pay could not have been applied in his case in view of the fact that the lapse was on the part of the State Government in not promoting him at the appropriate time. The proper and correct seniority list was required to have been maintained by the Government and they having not done so, as would be clear from the order dated 11.6.2002 (Annexure P-13) and 10.9.2004 (Annexure P-5), the petitioner could not be made to suffer. In support of his contention, the petitioner has placed reliance on Division Bench judgments of this Court in the case of Anand Mohan Saxena v. State of M.P. and another, 2009 (III) MPWN 87 = 2009 (4) MPLJ 523 and R.B. Guhe v. The State of M.P. 2008 (5) MPHT 291 and also on an order dated 2.12.2008 passed in the case of Gunnulal Katia v. The State of M.P. and others, in W.P. No. 1548 of 2003.

4. The respondents have filed reply and have stated that the principle bf no work no pay has rightly been applied in view of the fact that the petitioner did not work on the promoted post and as such he cannot be said to be entitled for monetary benefits.

5. Adminttedly, the petitioner's case was not considered for promotion on account of filing of O.A. by K.C. Desai and others challenging his promotion from the post of Assistant Grade II to Assistant Grade I. Thereafter on making the position clear by the Tribunal by passing interim order dated 12.10.2001 (Annexure P-2) the petitioner's case for prom