JUDGMENT M.P. Singh, J. - The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Vyakaran) against a substantive vacancy in a college known as Shree Vishram Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Bakharia, Lalganj, District Basti which is affiliated to Sanskrit University. There is no dispute that the services of the petitioner is governed by the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. 2. The initial appointment of the petitioner, which was made on 1-12-1981, was on one year's probation. The said appointment was subject to the approval of the Vice Chancellor of the Sanskrit University. 3. Approval was granted by the Vice Chancellor under Section 31(11) of the Universities Act. 4. The approval of the Vice Chancellor shows that the post against which the petitioner was appointed was a substantive one. Section 31(2) of the U.P. State Universities Act provides that the appointment of every such teacher, Director and Principal not being an appointment under Sub-section (3) shall in the first instance be on probation for one year which may, be extended for a period not exceeding one year. Thus the outer limit of probationary period is fixed as two years. There is nothing in the Act to indicate what would be the status of the probationer after the expiry of the maximum period of two year's probation. 5. A similar controversy arose in Moot Chandra v. U.P. Financial Corporation and others, W.P. No. 10332 of 1991 decided by me on 15-4-1991. In that case the provisions of Regulation 17 of the U.P. Financial Corporation (Staff Regulation), 1961 were under consideration. 6. Regulation 15 of the said Regulations provided that an officer would be recruited in service and he shall be required to be on probation for one year. It shall not be less than one year and not more than two years. Regulation 17 provided that the probationary period in no case could be extended beyond three years. It prescribed a maximum period of probation. The question was what would be the status of the employee if he was permitted to continue in service after the expiry of the probationary period. Regulation 17 provided that the probationary period in no case could be extended beyond three years. It prescribed a maximum period of probation. The question was what would be the status of the employee if he was permitted to continue in service after the expiry of the probationary period. Will he acquire permanency or will remain a probationer Relying on a decision reported in Om Prakash Maurya v. U.P. Co-operative Sugar Factories Federation, Lucknow and others; and another, AIR 1986 SC 1844 case reported in M.K. Agrawal v. Gurgaon Gramin Bank and others, AIR 1988 SC 286 this Court held that under such circumstances, in the absence of any contrary rule, the employee becomes confirmed by implication. In the instant case the petitioner was appointed on 1-12-1981 on probation for one year. He was allowed to continue after the expiry of the same. His services had not been terminated. He had not even been placed under suspension. No disciplinary proceeding is pending against him. Even then his salary is not being paid to him. This arbitrary action of the respondents has been challenged by the petitioner. He has made the demand on the ground that his employment still subsists. So long it continues, he is entitled for payment of his salary. 7. The respondents have not come forward with a case in the counter affidavit that the services of the petitioner have been terminated or he has been placed under suspension. Impliedly it means that the petitioner still continues in service. He has made a prayer for issue of writ of mandamus to pay the entire amount of salary due to him from October, 1982. Under these circumstances I am of the view that he is entitled for the relief prayed for. 8. A Division Bench of this Court in the case reported in Smt. Sikha Srivastava v. The Principal, Government Girls Intermediate College, Phulpur and others,, 1987 (2) Education Cases 156 has held that so long the order of termination is not passed in accordance with law and there is no valid order forfeiting the emoluments due to the employee, he has a right to receive salary and other dues admissible to him in accordance with law. This case squarely covers the present case and the petitioner is entitled for payment of salary. 9. This case squarely covers the present case and the petitioner is entitled for payment of salary. 9. The petitioner's further case is that even the services of a probationer cannot be terminated without the approval of the Vice Chancellor. In support of his contention he has made a reference to a case reported in Dr. Ganesh Pant v. Arya Vidya Sabha, Bulandshahr & others, 1981 UPLBEC 170 and another case reported in Dr. A.P. Srivastava v. The Committee of Management, Laxmi Narain Degree College Sirsa, Allahabad and another 1982 UPLBEC 25 I need not discuss this question any further because the respondents have not taken up this plea that the services of the petitioner has been terminated. 10. Initially there were only three Assistant Teachers and one Principal in the Institution. However, in 1978 one more post of Assistant Teacher was sanctioned by the Director of Education. Now the total sanctioned posts are five in number and the petitioner being fifth in position is entitled for payment of salary. 11. If the appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with law and there was no sanctioned post available, then the services of the petitioner should have been terminated in accordance with law on this very ground. But since no such order has been passed as yet, he is entitled, for payment of entire salary which is due. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner concluded his arguments at 10.20 a.m. It was the first case in the cause list. There was no standing counsel to oppose this prayer. At about 10.40 the learned Standing counsel who came to the court showed his helplessness to assist the court as he did not have the file. The writ petition accordingly was not opposed on behalf of the State. 13. The writ petition is allowed with costs.