Rajendra Menon, J.

( 1. ) Challenging the action of the respondents in granting retrospective promotion to the petitioner but treating certain intervening period on the principle of "No Work No Wages", petitioner had filed this writ petition in the year 2003 and even though more than seven years have passed, respondents have not filed any return. That being so, keeping in view the order passed on 10.2.2010 as return is not filed instipe of opportunity being granted, matter is being heard and decided without granting any further time to the respondents.

( 2. ) Petitioner was working as a Lecturer in the Government Higher Secondary School Barheta District-Narsinghpur at the relevant time, when this petitioner was filed in the year 2003.

( 3. ) Petitioner was promoted as a Head Master vide order dated 3.2.1999. Promotion was granted to the petitioner retrospectively with effect from 23.11.1996 but the period from 23.11.1996 to the date of promotion was treated on the basis of "No Work No Wages" and only notional pay fixation was granted to the petitioner. Inter-alia contending that when petitioner is denied promotion due to mistake and fault of the department, the principal of "No Work No Wages" cannot be followed. This writ petition has been filed and the only relief claimed is that salary for the entire period from the initial date of promotion i.e. 23.11.1996 be granted to the petitioner.

( 4. ) Shri Anand Nayak learned counsel for the petitioner, inviting my attention to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala and others Vs. E.K.Bhaskaran Pillai 2007(6) SCC Page 524 and certain other judgments, emphasized that when promotion is denied to a incumbent due to fault of the department, the incumbent is entitled to salary for the period, he was denied the promotion and in treating the period as "No Work No Wages" respondents, it is argued by learned counsel, have committed error.

( 5. ) Shri N.K.Tiwari learned counsel for the State refuted the aforesaid and submitted that as petitioner is only promoted w.e.f. 3.2.1999, he is only entitled to salary from the date of assuming charge on the promoted post and for the previous period as already notional pay fixation, seniority and other benefits are extended, it is argued by learned counsel that the petitioner cannot be granted any further relief.

( 6. ) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the record, it is seen that in the light of the order Annexure-P1 dated 3.2.1999 granting promotion to the petitioner, it is clearly mentioned that persons junior to the petitioner were promoted as Head Master on 23.1.1996 and because of some error, petitioner even though entitled to was deprived of this promotion. Accordingly, error was corrected and retrospectively w.e.f 23.11.1996, petitioner vide Annexure- P1 dated 3.2.1999 was granted promotion. It is, therefore, clear from this order that competent authority had admitted that petitioner is entitled to promotion w.e.f. 23.11.1996 but due to some error on the part of the respondents, juniors were promoted and petitioner was denied promotion.

( 7. ) In the case of E.K.Bhaskaran Pillai (Supra) relied upon by Shri Anand Nayak, the question has been considered in Para-4 and it has been held by the Supreme Court that when promotion is denied to a person due to no fault of his and because of some mistakes by the competent authority, benefit of salary and allowances cannot be denied. The matter has been dealt with in para-4 as under:-

"So far as the situation with regard to monitory benefits with retrospective promotion is concerned, that depends upon case to case. There are various facets which have to be considered. Sometimes in a case of departmental enquiry or. in a criminal case it depends upon the authorities to grant full back wages or 50% of back wages looking to the nature of delinquency involved in the matter or in criminal cases where the incumbent has been acquitted by g