IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15678 of 2004 ABDHESH KUMAR S/O SHRI RAM NARAIN SAH R/O VILLAGE- JANAKPUR ROAD POLICE STATION- PUPARI, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI ………….Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE JANAKPUR ROAD NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE/ NAGAR PANCHAYAT, JANAKPUR ROAD, POLICE STATION PUPARI DISTRICT- SITAMARHI THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, JANAKPUR ROAD NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE/ NAGAR PANCHAYAT, JANAKPUR ROAD, POLICE STATION PUPARI DISTRICT- SITAMARHI 4. THE SPECIAL OFFICER, JANAKPUR ROAD NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE/ NAGAR PANCHAYAT, JANAKPUR ROAD, POLICE STATION PUPARI DISTRICT- SITAMARHI 5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JANAKPUR ROAD NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE/ NAGAR PANCHAYAT, JANAKPUR ROAD, POLICE STATION PUPARI DISTRICT- SITAMARHI ………Respondents ----------- 5. 22.07.2011 Heard the parties. This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for quashing of the Memo No. 123 dated 29.5.2004 (Annexure-1) whereby the respondent no.4 has refused 18 months salary to the petitioner being for the months of January, 2001 to March, 2001 and from April 2002 to June 2003 along with interest thereon and for other consequential benefits. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had initially been appointed as License Inspector on temporary basis in the Janakpur Road Notified Area Committee as an unsanctioned post. Subsequently the committee resolved and regularized the services of the petitioner while also writing to the concerned authority of the State Government for sanctioning of post which, however, did not come to pass. After about 14 years of continuous service, the petitioner was terminated vide Memo No. 114 dated 1.7.2003 (Annexure-7). On an earlier occasion, this court in C.W.J.C. No. 14247 of 2003 had by its order dated 11.2.2004 held that the petitioner could not be allowed to continue in service against unsanctioned post. However, as regards non payment of salary the petitioner was at liberty to make a representation to the respondents for redressal of his grievances. The matter has since been disposed of by the concerned authority in terms of Memo No. 123 dated 29.5.2004 and the petitioner’s claim for arrears has been rejected on the solitary ground that when the appointment itself was illegal being against non-sanctioned post, payment of salary for the period under consideration would not be in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner has also issued a legal notice dated 12.7.2004 for payment of his arrears but to no avail. He has therefore approached this court for appropriate relief. This court is unable to appreciate the respondents’ stand for their refusal to make payment to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the services of the petitioner were duly taken by the respondent. It is also a matter of record that the petitioner has been serving for over 14 years against unsanctioned post and payments were throughout being made in the past without demur. It further transpires that the respondent had written to the State for sanctioning of post since the services of the petitioner were required by the respondent. Having taken the services of the petitioner, the respondents’ arbitrary stance in not paying the petitioner for the period in question cannot be countenanced much less endorsed. In these circumstances, it is directed that the respondents would make payment for the entire 18 months period under reference for which services had admittedly been taken from the petitioner but he has not been paid for the same. The payment should be made as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months hereof. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Fahad. ( Vikash Jain, J. )