JUDGMENT K. Narayana Kurup, J. 1. The petitioner and third respondent were selected as Junior Lecturers in the St. Thomas College, Ranni in the year 1982 and pursuant to Ext. P1 appointment order dated 9-1-1982 issued by the first respondent the petitioner took charge on 16-1-1982. Similar appointment order was issued to the 3rd respondent also and he took charge as junior lecturer in zoology in the afternoon of 18-1-1982. By Ext. P2 order dated 17-1-1984 issued by the first respondent the petitioner was promoted as Lecturer and the promotion order was approved by the second respondent University. By Ext. P3 order dated 27-11-1985 the petitioner was relieved from service with effect from 31-12-1985 A. N. as she was working in a leave vacancy and thereafter the petitioner was re-appointed as per Ext. P4 order dated 22-6-1987. It is the petitioner's case that pursuant to Ext. P 4 order she worked in the first respondent's college till 8-6-1988 as Lecturer in Zoology and the second respondent University approved the petitioner's service from 22-6-1987 to 9-1-1988 only instead of approving the service upto 8-6-1988. Being aggrieved by the non approval of the petitioner's service for the period 10-1-1988 to 8-6-1988 the petitioner filed Ext. P 5 representation before the second respondent University for approval of her service till 8-6-1988 and for disbursal of salary. The second respondent disposed of Ext. P 5 representation by Ext. P 6 order No. 317/Bl-3/Acad. dated 2-5-1989 in which it is stated that "your appointment with effect from 10-1-1988 to 8-6-1988 can be approved only after getting the original declining letter from Shri Sunny Jacob" (third respondent). The petitioner, being aggrieved by Ext. The second respondent disposed of Ext. P 5 representation by Ext. P 6 order No. 317/Bl-3/Acad. dated 2-5-1989 in which it is stated that "your appointment with effect from 10-1-1988 to 8-6-1988 can be approved only after getting the original declining letter from Shri Sunny Jacob" (third respondent). The petitioner, being aggrieved by Ext. P6 has approached this court with this Original Petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer in the first respondent's college during the period from 10-1-1988 to 8-6-1988 for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 (college and University) to disburse to the petitioner her salary and allowance during the period from 10-1-1988 to 8-6-1988 without any further delay, for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to give re-appointment to the petitioner as Lecturer in Zoology and to issue a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to treat the petitioner as senior to third respondent and for other incidental reliefs. 2. As regards the first prayer regarding approval of the petitioner's appointment, it has to be noted that so far no counter affidavit has been filed by the University and in the absence of proper counter affidavit on the part of the University, it is only to be presumed that they have no serious objection against this prayer being granted so that the only question that survives for consideration is the second prayer relating to the disbursal of the salary to the petitioner for the period she actually worked in the college, i. e. from 10-1-1988 to 8-6-1988, barring prayer Nos. 3 and 4 in regard to which the petitioner cannot have any serious grievance as according to me, she having settled down in Panaji, Goa (see Ext. P5 last para) is no longer in the service of the University and may not like to rejoin in the event of a vacancy at this distance of time. 3. It is now settled that an employee has an enforceable right to salary for the period he has actually worked. P5 last para) is no longer in the service of the University and may not like to rejoin in the event of a vacancy at this distance of time. 3. It is now settled that an employee has an enforceable right to salary for the period he has actually worked. When work was exacted from an employee and the employer had the benefit of such work, it is not open for the employer to turn round and say that the employee is not eligible to the salary as the service of the employee for the period in question has not been regularised. It is the duty of the first respondent employer to see that necessary approval of appointment is granted by the University. Salary being none other than a recompense for the services rendered, it cannot be turned down on the spacious plea that the appointment in question has not been approved by the University. Respondents 1 and 2 having utilised the service of the petitioner from 10-1-1988 to 8-6-1988 are duty bound to disburse the salary for the period the petitioner has actually worked. It has to be noted in this connection that even in the absence of the petitioner the said post will have to be manned by another competent individual in which event also the authority concerned will have to meet the liability regarding salary. It is nobody's case that the appointment in question is illegal, irregular or uncalled for. Viewed in this light, it has only to be held that the petitioner is entitled to the salary for the period she has actually worked in the first respondent's college, i. e. from 10-1-1988 to 8-6-1988. 4. Reference may usefully be made to the decision reported in State of Kerala v. E. C. Elsy and others ( 1987 (2) KLT 882 (F.B) where upholding the claim of a teacher for salary for the period she actually worked and denying her arrears of salary for period during which she did not actually work even though she was wrongly denied appointment negativing her claim for preferential right for appointment under R.51A Chap.14 KLR by the manager who appointed someone else, this court speaking through Malimath C. J. observed as follows:- vide Para.7. ".......................................What is relevant is not the date on which the teacher becomes entitled for appointment but the date on which he actually reports to duty. ".......................................What is relevant is not the date on which the teacher becomes entitled for appointment but the date on which he actually reports to duty. It is from that date the performance of his services commences. As salary is recompense for the service performed, he becomes entitled to receive salary with effect from the date an which he reports to duty. The claim for the anterior period is not, therefore, for salary. The claim for the period during which the teacher was deprived of the appointment on account of the wrongful action of the 5th respondent - Manager is not claim for salary.............................................................. The same view was taken in a judgment rendered by Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi (as he then was) on behalf of a Division Bench in writ Appeal No. 209 of 1979 decided on 25th September, 1980. The Supreme Court had occasion to deal with a similar case in Mary Oommen v. Manager, M. G. M. School Kerala ( AIR 1987 SC 1163 ). That was also a case in which the teacher was deprived of her right to preferential appointment conferred by R.51A of Chap.14A of the Rules. The Supreme Court directed that the teacher shall be entitled to all the benefits as though she was appointed to the post when the vacancy in question arose. But, so far as the claim of the teacher for arrears of salary was concerned, the Supreme Court made it clear that their directions will not enable the teacher to draw salary for the period she had not worked, but only other benefits such as seniority, increments, etc..............................................," 5. This case is by necessary implication an authority for the proposition that an employee will be entitled to the salary for the period during which he/she actually worked. A decision more or less directly on the point is the one reported in Nazeema v. Director of Collegiate Education (1992 (1) KLT SN P. 4 Case No. 4 where the employee concerned was working with effect from 14-7-1982 as against an approved post. Subsequently the date of approval was changed from 14-7-1982 to 23-10-1992. On steps being taken to recover the salary drown for the unapproved portion of service, the employee approached this court and this court held that there is no justification for directing the employee to refund the salary drawn by her for the work she had done. Subsequently the date of approval was changed from 14-7-1982 to 23-10-1992. On steps being taken to recover the salary drown for the unapproved portion of service, the employee approached this court and this court held that there is no justification for directing the employee to refund the salary drawn by her for the work she had done. It was held as follows: "The command that 'though shall live on the sweat of thy brow' will read in legal language that thou shall not deny the wages to the sweated labour. Work is done in many cases to earn livelihood and therefore, if the wages are denied to the work done it will lead to enforced labour and denial of right to life. Hence if the salary and allowance is directed to be refunded, it would mean that the petitioners were made to work for the period from 14-7-1982 to 23-10-1992 without any salary and that will amount to denial of right to life and right to works." 6. In the light of the above discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner is entitled to disbursal of arrears of salary and allowances during the period 10-1-1988 to 8-6-1988. There shall, therefore, be a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to arrears of salary for the aforesaid period with interest at the rate of 18% thereon from 1-2-1983. The competent authority concerned shall disburse the amount to the petitioner for the period from 10-1-1988 to 8-6-1988 expeditiously if a request on that behalf is made to that authority by the petitioner. The Original Petition is allowed as above. However, I make no order as to costs.