Judgment Narbdeshwar Pandey, Shashank Kumar Singh, JJ. 1. The writ petitioner, who is working on the post of librarian in the Arvind Manila College, patna, a constituent college under the Magadh University, She has been working since 28.1976. being duly appointed by the Governing body of the said College, she has moved this Court for a direction to the respondents to fix pay in the scale of Rs.850 to 1360/ with effect from 1.4.81, as has been granted by the respondents vide their order dated 18th January, 1992 and to pay the petitioner the arrears of salary since April, 1983. 2. It has further been prayed that the respondents be directed to provide the petitioner revised pay-scale with effect from 1.4.86 and thereafter fix the pay of the petitioner in the said scale. 3. A further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the selection grade on the post of Librarian as the petitioner has already completed more than 10 years of service. 4. The short facts giving rise to the present application is that the petitioner had applied for the post of Librarian on 22nd of July, 1976 and subsequently, by letter dated 13th July, 1976 vide Annexure-1, she was appointed on the said post by the erstwhile governing body on a consolidated pay of Rs.250/- per month. 5. It has been stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that at the time of appointment of the petitioner there was no act or Ordinance of the State Government to the effect that the post on which a person is appointed should be sanctioned by the State Government and/or prior to such appointment, approval be taken by the State Government Such condition, according to the learned counsel came into force on 15th August, 1976 when Bihar State University Ordinance (Ordinance No 207) of 1976 was promulgated which was subsequently replaced by an Act known as Bihar Universities Act (hereinafter referred to as the act. As such, since 15th August, 1976, after coming into effect of the aforesaid Act any post in affiliated college was to be sanctioned by the state Government and prior to appointment approval of the State government was necessary. As such, since 15th August, 1976, after coming into effect of the aforesaid Act any post in affiliated college was to be sanctioned by the state Government and prior to appointment approval of the State government was necessary. As the appointment of the petitioner was made prior to 15th August, 1976, as such according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the aforesaid clause was not applicable in the case of the petitioner. 6. The further case of the petitioner is that on 29th September, 1980, an agreement was reached between the private Managing committee of the arvind Mabila College (hereinafter referred to as the College) and the state Government, as result thereof all the employees of the said college, including the petitioner became University employees 7. After the take over of the college, an order was issued on 11th september, 1981, by which the respondent-University while retaining services of the petitioner granted pay scale of Rs 220/-to 315/- from the date of conversion of the college as a constituent college. A copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure-2 to this petition. 8. As the petitioner, according to the learned counsel, was entitled for higher pay scale, she represented before the authorities on 18th november, 1981 and when no older was passed on her representation, a reminder was also given on 4th July, 1983. The petitioner also wrote a letter to the Chancellor on 24th November, 1983. On query the University authority intimated the Chancellor that the post of Librarian has not been sanctioned and only a post of sorter Assistant Librarian has been sanctioned by the State Government in terms of Sec.35 of the Act. The scale of the said post was Rs.220 to 315/ and the petitioner has been given such scale. The said letter is Annexure-3. 9. The petitioner having come to know about the said communication, intimated Chancellor by representation dated 10th March, 1984 that there was no question of sanction of post of Librarian, as the post against which she has been appointed was in existence much prior to 15th August, 1976 and thereby Sec.35 of 1976 Act was not applicable in the case of the petitioner. But in spite of the said letter, the petitioner was not provided with revised pay scale of Librarian. But in spite of the said letter, the petitioner was not provided with revised pay scale of Librarian. When no order was passed in favour of the petitioner in spite of several representations, the petitioner, moved this Court by filing C. W. J. C. . No.1754/84. In the said writ application, it was prayed that a direction to provide the petition the scale of Rs.348 to 570/, which was being granted to the librarian having qualification of Graduate with Degree in Librarian Science. The Addl. Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the University in the said writ application accepted the claim of the petitioner and gave assurance on behalf of the University that the petitioner will be granted the scale of Librarian In view of his assurance, the aforesaid writ application was disposed of by order dated 17th May, 1984, a copy of which is annexure-4 In the said order it was stated that the University on receipt of a report from the Principal of the College with regard to the number of books in the Library, shall pay to the petitioner the appropriate pay scale of a Librarian with effect from the date when the college was made constituent. The Principal of the College was also directed to send a report to the university within one month and the University was directed to fix the pay scale within one month from the date of receipt of the report and pay arrears to the petitioner within one month from the date of fixation of the pay scale. 10. It has further been stated that though the petitioner gave reminder to the Respondent University for granting the scale of Rs.348/-to 570/- as per the assurance before this court, but it was after a great effort petitioners salary was fixed in the said scale though much after the peremptory time granted by this court Annexure-6, a communication to the principal dated 16th February, 1985 will show the chart by which fixation of pay of the petitioner in the scale of Rs.348 to 570/- was made from the date the college became constituent. It also shows the arrears which was due to the petitioner after proper fixation of pay. In the meantime, the State government, revised scale of pay of its employees with effect from 1.4.81 and the actual payment in the revised scale was to be released with effect from 1.4.83. 11. It also shows the arrears which was due to the petitioner after proper fixation of pay. In the meantime, the State government, revised scale of pay of its employees with effect from 1.4.81 and the actual payment in the revised scale was to be released with effect from 1.4.83. 11. Thereafter the Respondent University issued an order on 14th july, 1986 revising the pay scale of different employees including the librarian with effect from 1.4 81 As the pay of Librarian has been revised, as such, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner it was incumbent upon of the University to provide the petitioner with revised scale of rs.850 to 1360 with effect from 1.4 81. But in spite of several representations, the same was not done. 12. It has further been stated that in the meantime, in December, 1989 the State Government accepted the recommendation of the 5th Pay Revision committee/fitment Committee for its employees, which was also given effect to from 1.4.86. By order dated 22nd March, 1990, the University respondent issued a direction stating therein that the pay revision of the university employees will be done in the light of the 5th Pay Revision committee/fitment Committee. 13. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner further became entitled for revision of pay with effect from 1-4-86. The submission, therefore, is that after the recommendation of 4th Pay Revision, like the State government, a scheme was also adopted by the Respondent University for giving Time Bound Promotion was to be given on completion of 10 years of service, if no regular promotion has been given. On 22nd March, 1990 the University issued a letter asking the Principals of the constituent Colleges to send details relating to non-teaching employees for consideration of Time bound Promotion 14. It has been stated that as the petitioner has completed 10 years of service as back as on 2nd August, 1986 as such, she was due for Time Bound promotion in the Selection Grade of Librarian. According to the learned counsel cases of a number of employees of the College have been considered by the Respondent-University and by order dated 20th February, 1991, they were granted Time Bound Promotion and their pay was fixed on that basis. According to the learned counsel cases of a number of employees of the College have been considered by the Respondent-University and by order dated 20th February, 1991, they were granted Time Bound Promotion and their pay was fixed on that basis. The case of the petitioner was neither considered for such time bound promotion nor she was given the revised pay scale of the basic post of librarian. 15. It has further been stated that by order dated 18th January, 1992, the Respondent-University gave the petitioner the revised pay scale of Rs.850 to 1360 with effect from 1.4.81. A copy of the said order is Annexure-12 to the petition. 16. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner though the revised scale of Rs.850 1360 has been given to the petitioner with effect from 1.4.81 but she has not been given the arrears of salary. It has also been stated that the salary of the petitioner on the basis of subsequent revised scale, as also time bound promotion as per the recommendation of the 4th pay revision committee has not been provided to the petitioner till date. The petitioner lastly filed a representation on 11.11.92 but no order has been passed by the Respondent-University on her representation. Thereafter the petitioner moved this court. 17. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which it has been stated that the petitioner is working against a non-sanctioned post and the Respondent-University has already moved the state Government for sanction of the said post and is awaiting the decision of the State Government. It has further been stated that fixation of salary of the petitioner has already been done in the scale of Rs 850 to 1360 vide annexure-12 which was purely provisional until approval of the State government. Though some reminders were sent by the University but still final decision has not been communicated. 18. So far as grant of revised pay scale as per the recommendation of vth Pay Revision Committee is concerned the learned counsel for the university stated that the petitioner has already been allowed revised scale as recommended by the 5th Pay Revisioh Committee, i. e. , 1640 to 2900/-. 19. 18. So far as grant of revised pay scale as per the recommendation of vth Pay Revision Committee is concerned the learned counsel for the university stated that the petitioner has already been allowed revised scale as recommended by the 5th Pay Revisioh Committee, i. e. , 1640 to 2900/-. 19. It has further been stated since the petitioner is working as per staffic pattern and the post has not been sanctioned by the State Government, the University decided to allow the petitioner only in the initial scale of the revised pay scale along with allowances. The increment has not been allowed to the petitioner as well as other similarly situated persons, who were working on staffic pattern post against non-sanctioned post. As such, there is no question of fixation of pay of the petitioner in higher scale or giving time-bound promotion, as said benefit of time bound promotion has not been given to person, who were working against non-sanctioned post. 20. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent-University and perusing the writ petition as well as the counter-affidavit, in our view the Respondent-University cannot be allowed to change its stand time to time It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Librarian with effect from 2.8.76. The bihar State University Ordinance (Ordinance no.207) came into force with effect from 15th August, 1916 The said Ordinance did not have any retrospective effect. Sec.35 of the Act deals with the matters relating to sanction of posts as also creates a bar on appointment against non-sanctioned posts in the University or affiliated Colleges. It would be appropriate of quote sub-section (2) of Sec.35 of the Act. "notwithstanding anything contained in the Act no college, other than any of the college mentioned in clause (a) and (b) of the sub-section (1) shall after the commencement of this Act, appoint any person to any post without the prior sanction of the State Government. Provided that no sanction of the State Government shall be necessary for filling up any sanctioned post of teacher for a period not exceeding six months, by a candidate, who possesses, the prescribed qualifications. " 21. Provided that no sanction of the State Government shall be necessary for filling up any sanctioned post of teacher for a period not exceeding six months, by a candidate, who possesses, the prescribed qualifications. " 21. It is admitted position that on the date when the petitioner was appointed the Ordinance was not there and therefore, section 35 (2) of the Act cannot be applicable in the case of the petitioner. 22. The petitioner had earlier moved this Court in C. W. J. C.1754/ 84 and the stand of the petitioner was that as she had been appointed on the post of Librarian prior to 15th August, 1976. there was no question of sanction or approval of the post by the State Government The stand of the petitioner was accepted by the Addl. Advocate General, who represented the Respondent-University Therefore, at this stage the university cannot change its stand and state that they are waiting for sanction by the State Government. 23. In that view of the matter, it is held that the petitioner is entitled for arrears of salary at revised rate with effect from 4th July, 1983. She is also entitled for revision of pay with effect from 1st April, 1986 which was given to other employees of the constituent Colleges. So far her claim for time bound promotion and other consequential reliefs, she should file a fresh representation before Vice-Chancellor. If such a representation is filed within three weeks from today, the Respondents shall dispose of same witnin period of two months from the date of filing of the representation by a reasoned order. The arrears of salary with respect to the period indicated above mast be paid within four months. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this application is disposed of. Application Dismissed