- (1.) VINEET Saran, J. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for a mandamus directing the respondents to pay the entire arrears of salary of the petitioner and further to continue to pay the salary as and when it falls due.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as an Assistant Clerk in the College of respondent No. 3 with effect from 1-2-1991 and since then he has been continuing to work in the institution of respondent No. 3. On 1-4-1991 the respondent-institution was included under the grant-in-aid scheme of the State Government up to the High School level. THE petitioner thus contends that since he was already on the list of the employees as on the date when the institution came under the grant-in-aid list, he would be entitled to be paid salary from the grant-in-aid fund provided by the State Government. I have heard Sri V. K. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Despite notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to which rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. Two supplementary affidavits have also been filed by the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the payment is made under the grant-in-aid scheme of the State Government only to those employees and teachers of the institution, who are appointed within the sanctioned strength of the institution. The appointment of the petitioner was beyond the sanctioned strength and thus he would not be entitled for payment under the said scheme. It has further been submitted that the appointment had been made by respondent No. 3 institution and in any case it would be the responsibility of the institution to make payment of salary to the petitioner as the State undertakes to make payment of those employees and teachers who fall within the sanctioned and approved strength of the institution.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that considering the strength of the students of the institution there should be at least two posts of clerks sanctioned in the institution. He has placed reliance on a Government Order dated 20-11-1977 (which has been filed along with the supplementary affidavit and not with the writ petition) wherein it has been stated that there would be one post of clerk sanctioned in case if the number of students of the institution are up to 500 and for every additional 400 students one additional post of clerk should be sanctioned. The petitioner contends that since the strength of the students up to High School level for the year 1991-92 was over 1100 students, thus at least one additional post of clerk ought to be sanctioned and if so done the petitioner would be entitled for payment of salary under the grant-in-aid scheme. However, no such prayer has been made in the writ petition for sanctioning any additional post in the institution and as such the same cannot be considered by this Court. Even otherwise, in case if the petitioner was so aggrieved, he or respondent No. 3 ought to have first approached the appropriate authority for sanctioning and approving the additional post of clerk in the institution for which no efforts have been made by the petitioner or the institution or at least no such assertions have been made in the writ petition or even in the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, in my view, in the absence of the petitioner having been appointed on any approved or sanctioned post, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be held responsible for payment of salary to the petitioner. The appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Clerk is said to have been made by respondent No. 3 institution merely two months prior to the inclusion of the respondent No. 3 institution under the grant-in-aid list of the State Government. The petitioner has not filed any documents to show that respondent No. 3 institution had ever forwarded the name of the petitioner as an employee who is to be paid under the grant-in-aid scheme. A perusal of the record does not make it clear as to whether the appointment of the petitioner had been made after following any procedure of selection i. e. after making an advertisement inviting applications. In any case the contesting respondent No. 3 is said to have made the appointment of the petitioner even when it was not included in the grant-in-aid list. In case if the petitioner is so aggrieved regarding non-payment of his salary, he may take recourse by initiating appropriate legal action for recovery of the arrears of salary and payment of current and future salary from respondent No. 3. No such relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ jurisdiction. Thus, in my view, since the post on which the petitioner has been appointed was not duly sanctioned, the petitioner would not be entitled for payment of salary under the grant-in-aid scheme of the State Government.;