JUDGMENT M.L. Bhat, J. - The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari and mandamus through the medium of this writ petition. The decision dated 30-5-88 on his representation is prayed to be quashed. A mandamus is sought for payment of due salary to the petitioner for the post of Principal, with effect from 28-10-74 till the date of his superannuation and to fix his salary and amount of pension on the basis of salary which he was entitled to draw and prays for payment of interest on the delayed payment of provident fund. 2. Facts relevant for deciding this writ petition are stated briefly. 3. The petitioner was appointed as principal in the Institution in question with effect from 28-10-74 and he continued to hold the said post till the date of his superannuation, that is till 30-6-85. Prior to it he was lecturer having been appointed in 1951 and on the retirement of the then Principal he was appointed as officiating principal and thereafter on ad hoc basis till he was selected by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission on regular basis. The petitioner states that he has received payment of salary for the post of lecturer with effect from 28-10-74 to 16-12-75 and 21-5-77 to 5.9-81. For the remaining period he has received salary for the post of principal. He was entitled to draw salary for the post of Principal because he had worked continuously on the said post from 28-10-74. His pension is fixed on the basis of his salary which he drew as Principal from 6-9-81 whereas it should have been calculated from 28-10-74 and should have been given pay of Principal from that date. He was entitled to get increments with effect from 28-10-74. For not having been paid due salary of the post of principal, the petitioner has suffered huge loss. 4. The petitioner had produced copy of a judgment of this court in his earlier writ petition No. 5466 of 1978, decided on 11-7-79 by which it was directed that the petitioner was entitled to get the salary for the post of principal from the date of his officiation on the said post. The respondents did not decide the petitioner's representation ? The respondents did not decide the petitioner's representation ? The petitioner has placed copy of the judgment in the aforesaid writ petition as Annexure A-l to the writ petition, Copies of the resolution dated 26-4-84 passed by Committee of Management and the certificate of the Manager of the Committee of Management showing the payment received by the petitioner are annexed as Annexures A-2 and A-3 respectively to the writ petition. 5. The petitioner seems to have filed another writ petition in the high court which was rejected. The number of that writ petition was 5827 of 1988 and it was decided on 31-3-88 with a direction that the representation of the petitioner be considered within six weeks. Copies of the said order in that writ petition and representation made by the petitioner are annexed as annexures A-4 and A-5 to the writ petition. Inspite of all this respondent No. 1 erroneously rejected the claim of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 30-5-88 which is annexure A-6 to the writ petition. Copies of the resolution dated 27-10-74 and 9-1-77 by which the petitioner had worked as officiating Principal till a regular selection is made on the post are Annexures A-7 and A-8 to the writ petition. Annexure A-9 is a certificate issued by the Manager of the Committee of Management dated 13-1-84. 6. The petitioner, thereafter filed another writ petition No. 1035 of 1977 which was dismissed as not pressed on 9-8-84. In that writ petition some interim orders were passed. But, with the dismissal of the writ petition those interim orders were also ceased to be operative. Afterwards the petitioner was selected through the commission as principal and he remained on the post till the date of his superannuation. 7. The petitioner's assertion that he had remained on the post of Principal from 28-10-74, is said to have been admitted by the respondents in the Writ Petition No. 1035 of 1977 which was dismissed on 9-8-84. The District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh who was opposite party No. 3 in that writ petition had filed a counter-affidavit and had admitted that the petitioner had worked as acting Principal of the college since 1974. Thereafter, it would not lie in the mouth of the respondents to deny the claim of the petitioners. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed. 8. Thereafter, it would not lie in the mouth of the respondents to deny the claim of the petitioners. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed. 8. In the counter-affidavit the appointment of the petitioner in lecturer's grade is not disputed. It is denied that deputed Director of Education had approved the petitioner as acting principal from 28-10-74. It is stated that from 17-12-75 to 20-4-77 and for a period from 6-9-81 to 30-1-85, the petitioner was granted approval to act as acting Principal and he was paid salary for the said period. However, paras 7 to 14 of the writ petition are not denied. In para 8 of the writ petition a reference is made to the admission of respondent No. 1 in the previous writ petition as regards the petitioner's officiation as Principal with effect from 28-10-74. In the counter-affidavit of writ petition No. 1035 of 1977 respondent No. 1 has made an admission about the petitioner having worked as officiating Principal with effect from 28-10-74. Therefore, and thing said in this writ petition contrary to what has been already admitted with regard to the facts asserted by the petitioner about his having remained as officiating Principal with effect from 28-10-74 cannot be believed. Moreover, in para 6 of the counter-affidavit, respondent No. 1 has not denied that he has not made admission with regard to the period for which the petitioner had worked as officiating Principal. 9. There is a declaration of favour of the petitioner given in Writ Petition No. 5466 of 1978 whereby the petitioner's right to receive salary for the post of Principal for the period during which he had worked as officiating Principal. In view of this fact and in view of the admission made by respondent No. 1 on writ petition No. 1035 of 1977 about the factual aspect of the case which pertains to the petitioner having worked as officiating Principal from 28-10-74. It is irresistibly concluded that the petitioner had worked from 28-10-74 as officiating Principal and thereafter on ad-hoc basis and thereafter on regular basis continuously upto the date of his superannuation. 10. The petitioner's period of tenure as Principal, therefore would start from the date of his officiation from 28-10-74 on the said post. There is no evidence that there has been a break in his working as Principal. 10. The petitioner's period of tenure as Principal, therefore would start from the date of his officiation from 28-10-74 on the said post. There is no evidence that there has been a break in his working as Principal. He may have worked either as Officiating Principal or ad hoc Principal or as regular Principal, continuously from 28-10-74 till he was supper annotated. 11. The decision on the representation of the petitioner which is impugned in this writ petition, therefore, is not based on facts. The said decision is based on considerations which are far fetched, irrelevant and against the weight of the record. The authority deciding the representation has lost sight of important facts. It seems that without considering the import of the admission made by respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 1035 of 1977 and without understanding the import of the judgment given in writ petition No. 5466 of 19/8 dated 11-7-79 the concerned authority has taken a view which is contrary to the facts and law. The concerned authority seems to have been oblivious about the nature of the controversy and about the attending circumstances which were Germain for deciding the controversy. Therefore, the impugned order dated 30-5-88 cannot be sustained. It is now well-settled, that the order which is based on irrelevant factors of which does not take relevant factors into consideration, has to be ignored from the consideration. There is ample evidence that the petitioner had worked as officiating Principal from 28-10-74 and thereafter, he had worked on ad hoc basis for some period and on regular basis for the remaining period till the date of his superannuation. His working as Principal has been uninterrupted and continuous from 28-10-74 to 30-6-85. Therefore, for the aforesaid period i.e. 28-10-74 to 30-6-85 he was entitled to draw salary as Principal and also to draw increments from time to time as were admissible and payable to hint under Rules. Denial of due salary to the petitioner as Principal would amount to depriving the petitioner of his property. 12. On the basis of the pay which the petitioner is entitled to draw under Rules as Principal from 28-10-74 to 30-6-85 continuously after giving him benefits of increments under the rules, his pension is to be calculated and paid to him. Needless to state that the petitioner's status and lecturer upto 28-10-74 is admitted by the respondents. 13. 12. On the basis of the pay which the petitioner is entitled to draw under Rules as Principal from 28-10-74 to 30-6-85 continuously after giving him benefits of increments under the rules, his pension is to be calculated and paid to him. Needless to state that the petitioner's status and lecturer upto 28-10-74 is admitted by the respondents. 13. The petitioner claims an interest on delayed payment of provident fund from 31-3-86 to 7-2-88, that is from the date when it was to be paid till the date of actual payment. However, this prayer of the petitioner cannot be considered in this writ petition because he has already received the provident fund and he cannot enforce his right to receive interest on the delayed payment of the provident fund. He has not received the provident fund under protest. His unconditional acceptance of the provident fund would not give him any right to agitate the claim of interest on delayed payment of the provident fund. 14. However, the petitioner has succeeded in establishing that he had worked as Principal continuously from 28-10-74 to 30-6-85, either on officiating basis or on ad hoc basis or on permanent basis. Therefore, he is entitled to receive the unpaid salary for the period for which he has not received the same as Principal during the period 28-10-74 to 30-6-85 along with increments as are payable to him under Rules on the post of Principal and he is also entitled to receive pension of the basis of the pay as Principal from 28-10-74 to 30-6-85. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed with the directions that - (i) The impugned order dated 30-5-88 passed by respondent No. 1 contained in Annexure A-6, to the writ petition is hereby quashed. A command is issued to the respondents to pay the petitioners due salary for the post of Principal which has remained unpaid with effect from 28-10-74 to 30-6-85. The respondent No. 1 will calculate the pay as admissible to the petitioner under Rules and increments which are admissible to him from time to time and thereafter make the payment of the salary to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order. The petitioner may produce a certified copy of this order before respondent No. 1 within two weeks from today. The petitioner may produce a certified copy of this order before respondent No. 1 within two weeks from today. (ii) The petitioner's pension shad be fixed on the basis of the salary which he was entitled to draw as Principal with all admissible increments with effect from 21-10-/4 to 30-6-85 and thereafter the amount of unpaid pension shall be paid to him within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by respondent No. 1. In future also he will draw the pension as indicated above. (iii) The petitioner shall not be entitled to get any interest on the delayed payment of the provident fund from 31-6-86 till 7-2-88 and his claim in respect of the interest is rejected. There will be no order as to costs. A certified copy of this order may be given to learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within one week.