JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Binoda Nand Mishra, the learned Advocate for the respondent / University and Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Advocate for the State.

2. This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent authorities for making payment of dues of salary of the petitioner from April 2003 to February 2013 and 50% of salary from March 2013 to September 2015 on which date, he superannuated from service and other benefits which have been listed in paragraph -1 of the writ petition.

3. Some confusion appears to have been created in the concerned college which is an affiliated college of the respondent / University.

4. The petitioner was appointed as a lecturer in Economics in the year 1978 after observing the due procedure for appointment of lecturers in a private affiliated college. There was an another advertisement in the year 1981 for appointment of lecturer in Economics subject in the college and the petitioner was again appointed against such advertisement. His appointment was confirmed by the syndicate of the University and later was approved by the College Service Commission.

5. In the college, there are only ten sanctioned posts of lecturers including that of the Principal. Out of the said ten posts, one is reserved for English, the other for Sanskrit and one each for Hindi and one of the subjects of Social Science. It would also be relevant here to state that since the college in question is a private affiliated college, it is a deficit grant in-aid college and the State Government releases the deficit grants for payment of salary to the employees of the college who are appointed in accordance with law against the sanctioned vacant posts.

6. The whole dispute began when one Jai Ram Jha was appointed against an un-sanctioned post of Maithali subject. He was being paid his salary against the sanctioned post of Hindi on which one Umesh Mishra had been appointed. Since, Umesh Mishra was not being paid his salary, he approached this Court vide C.WJ.C. No. 5444 of 1996. In the aforesaid writ petition, Jai Ram Jha was respondent no. 6.

7. While disposing of the aforesaid writ petition, the Bench observed that it was nobody's case that any other person was working against the sanctioned post of lecturer in Hindi. The only dispute raised was as to whether the petitioner therein was working against the said post or respondent no. 6 had been working on that post. The Court, on finding that the petitioner therein (Umesh Mishra) was still functioning as a lecturer in Hindi, came to the conclusion that even if the appointment of Umesh Mishra was not regular in terms of the provisions of the Act and he was working by way of an Ad-hoc agreement on the basis of temporary concurrence of the College Service Commission, the college authorities were under an obligation to pay him the salary for the period that he had actually performed his duties and his services were temporarily approved by the Commission. However, while parting with the case, the Bench further clarified that the decision and direction in favour of Mr. Umesh Mishra will not stand in the way of respondent no. 6 (Jai Ram Jha) for payment of his salary against the post of lecturer in the subject Maithali "which stood sanctioned". This side wind of an observation of the learned Single Judge was taken as a direction for treating the post of Maithali as a sanctioned post. Based on this observation, the University stopped making payment of salary to aforesaid Jai Ram Jha because there were only four posts of lecturers available in four subjects out of ten in the college, one being a subject under Social Science which was never specified.

8. The stoppage of salary of Mr. Jai Ram Jha (Maithali) led him to approach the Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 4437 of 1999. A Bench of this Court while hearing that writ petition took note of the judgment passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5444 of 1996 referred to above and concluded that he also de