Hon’ble Sheo Kumar Singh-I, J.—Heard Mr. Satish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner like other similarly situated honorarium lecturers teaching in other colleges of different Universities for whole year and further to pay the arrears of the salary of the petitioner for back years with interest.

3. The brief facts giving rise to filing of the present writ petition are that initially the petitioner was temporarily engaged on contractual basis as ad hoc lecturer in Philosophy Department of Y.D.P.G. College, Lakhimpur Kheri against leave vacancy which was fallen vacant due to leave of one Dr. Yogendra Singh (Lecturer Philosophy). The petitioner was temporarily engaged by the Committee of Management as honorarium lecturer which was year to year basis and later on amendment was brought in U.P. Higher Education Service Selection Commission and Section 31-E was inserted on 23.12.2006. On the basis of this Government Order the petitioner has prayed for giving pay and salary like other similarly situated honorarium lecturers teaching in other colleges. Since the services of the petitioner were discontinued by the Principal of the college, the petitioner has filed this writ petition being aggrieved by the said order.

4. In the counter-affidavit, it has been narrated that the engagement of the petitioner on contractual basis was for a specified period and requisition was sent to the Public Service Commission for regular appointment. The Public Service Commission recommended the name of one Dr. Shyam Bahadur against the said vacant post but he was unable to join the post due to certain interim order of the Court. Provision of Section 31-E of U.P. Higher Education Service Commission (3rd Amendment) Act, 2006, provides certain minimum eligibility criteria which the petitioner did not fulfill, thus, his contractual engagement was not regularized. The term of the contractual engagement of the petitioner was for the period of actual teaching work. Thus, the payment of honorarium for Sundays and holidays was not admissible as per the Government Order. The order dated 8.11.2004 specifies a condition that the engagement/appointment of the petitioner was at the rate of Rs. 100/- per lecture subject to maximum payment of honorarium to be not more than Rs. 5000/- per month with further condition that this engagement was for the period till the regular appointment by the Public Service Commission. Similar condition was put in the engagement orders issued on 19.10.2006 and 3.2.2009 which make it clear that the services of the petitioner were not regular and his appointment was not in accordance with the procedure of the appointment rules. He was temporarily engaged academic year to year on the further condition for payment of certain amount on the basis of per lecture with further limitation of maximum amount per month.

5. The petitioner has filed several writ petitions, which are required to be mentioned here :

Writ Petition No. 614 (SB) of 2007

Order date-23.5.2007

We, therefore, dispose of this petition with a direction that the petitioner shall be allowed to continue on his post of Lecturer in Philosophy till regularly selected candidate is available, subject to satisfaction of his work and conduct and the administrative control, which is being exercised on him, and shall be paid honorarium regularly. The arrears of honorarium, if any, which have not yet been paid, shall also be paid by the authority concerned within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

Writ Petition No. 764 (SB) of 2010

Order date-3.3.2011

Without entering into the merits of the case, we dispose of the writ petition finally directing