Samvatsar, J. --1. This writ appeal is preferred by the appellant, assailing an order dated 12/312008, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 3694/05(s), whereby the Writ Court has dismissed the Writ petition filed by the Writ petitioner for back wages on the principle of "No work, No pay" .

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner Anand Mohan Saxena (appellant herein) was initially appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk on 28/4/1973 and was promoted to the post of Accounts Assistant by order dated 23/1212002 w.e.f. 6/9/1999. But he was denied all the monetary benefits on the principle of "No work, No pay". The petitioner approached this Court stating that his juniors were promoted to the post of Accounts Assistant on 6/9/1999; and without any reason he was denied the promotion upto 23/1212002, hence, he should be allowed the back wages. The learned writ· Court dismissed the petition. Hence, this appeal.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has actually worked in the Department but could not be given promotion without any fault on his part, hence, he should be allowed the backwages. In support of his argument, Shri O.P. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant relied on a judgment of Apex Court in the case of Union of India, etc. v. K. V. Jankiraman, etc, AIR 1991 SC 2010, in which the Apex Court has held that if an employee is willing to work on a particular post, is deprived of the same due to illegal order passed by the employer and the employee could not discharge his work due to erroneous order passed by the employer, then the employee is entitled to consequential including the monetary benefits and the normal principal of "no work-no pay" is not applicable in such case. This judgment is passed by three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court.

4. In reply to his argument, Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents-State relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. O.P.Gupta, etc., AIR 1996 SC 2936 which is a judgment delivered by two-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in which the Apex Court has distinguished the case of K. V.Jankiraman (Supra) on the ground that in the case of O.P. Gupta (Supra) the seniority list itself was not finalized due to which the employees could not be promoted. In such circumstances, the Apex Court has held that in absence of seniority list there was no certainty about the promotion of the employees and, therefore, for this reason, the back wages were denied.

5. The next judgment is in the case of Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v.Superintendent Engineer; Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar (Gujarat) and Another (1996) 11 SCC 603. In that case, the Apex Court has also denied the promotion. In that case, the promotion of the petitioner was delayed as he was convicted for commission of offence under Section 302, r/w Section 34 of IPC and his conviction was subsequently set aside. As the petitioner's promotion was delayed due to his conviction, the Apex Court denied the promotion to the petitioner.

6. Similar situation is in the case of Union of India and Others v. Jaipal Singh (2004) 1 SCC 121. In that case also the promotion was delayed due to conviction of the employee by the Criminal Court. Thus, for this reason, there was delay in making the promotion.

7. Another judgment is in the case of Baldev Singh v. Union of India and Others, (2005) 8 SCC 747. From the persual of the said judgment, the same position is also arising. In that case also the employee was convicted for commission of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 and 452 of IPC.

8. In the case of Commissioner; Kamataka Housing Board v. C.Muddaiah, (2007) 7 SCC 689, the two-Judge Bench of the Apex Court has denied the back wages on the ground that same is against the public interest. From the perusal of the said judgment, we find that it was a case arising out of contempt o