Aggrieved by the action of the State Government, indicating their non-approval for the fixation of the pay of the petitioner at Rs. 700, the petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. By the impugned order dated 18-6-1985, the State Government directed that the fixation of pay of the petitioner should be at Rs. 400 and the extra amount, which was paid to petitioner since 1980 be deducted from his salary. 3. The petitioner, who was initially working at Madras University on the post of Cartographer was appointed on probation of one year at the University of Allahabad on the post of Cartographer, in the pay-scale of Rs. 400-700, in the Department of Defence Studies. 4. The petitioner was given five increments at the initial appointment in view of his post experience, educational qualifications and the pay he was last drawing with the Madras University. 5. The appointment letter of the petitioner dated 30 7-1980, contained in Annexure-3, provides that the protection of salary, which the petitioner had drawn at Madras University, shall be subject to the approval of the University Grants Commission. 6. The petitioner had worked for almost six years, and the University Grants Commission had already communicated the approval vide latter No. 4-C/76 (l)-2/d-17 dated 26-8-1980, as communicated by the letter of Registrar, University of Allahabad, Alllahabad dated 10-9-1990 the Com mission had agreed to the protection of basic salary of Rs. 700 per month to the post of Cartographer, on which the petitioner was appointed by the University of Allahabad. 7. In spite of the above approval of the University Grants Commis sion, the State Government on the pretext that no prior approval has been taken from it, had issued the impugned letter, directing the University fix the salary of the petitioner at Rs. 400 and to recover the extra amount paid to the petitioner in the last six years. 8. In our opinion, the action of the State Government is absolutely unjustified, inasmuch as, after six years of payment having been already made to the petitioner, it was not justifiable on their part to have asked for recovery und to keep silence for six long years. 8. In our opinion, the action of the State Government is absolutely unjustified, inasmuch as, after six years of payment having been already made to the petitioner, it was not justifiable on their part to have asked for recovery und to keep silence for six long years. Further, the impugned order does not contain any reason as to why the State Government has not accepted the recommendations of the University Grants Commission and the orders of appointment as well as the fixation of pay made by the University at Rs. 700. In fact the action of the University Grants Con-mission as well as the University in the matter of fixation of salary of the petitioner, at the scale of Rs. 700 amounts to acquiescence. Thus, the respondent authorities are stopped from asserting otherwise and the doctrine of acquiescence will certainly bind them. 9. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the decision of apex Court in the case of Nayagarh Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. v. Narayan Rath, AIR 1977 SC 112 wherein it has been observed that if a person is appointed to a post erroneously and he is allowed to continue on the said post for a long time, he cannot be removed from the said post in the garb of rectification of mistakes and doctrine of acquiescence applies. 10. Apart from the above reason, we are also of the opinion that the appointment letter only required to approval of the University Grants Commission. This requirement has already been fulfilled by virtue of the subsequent letter of approval issued by the University Grants Commission by letter No. 4-C/76 (l)- 2/d-17 dated 26-8-1980. 11. Thus, there was no infirmity in the appointment of the petitioner and the fixation of salary, at the pay-scale of Rs. 700 per month. 12. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 18-6-1986, contained in Annexure-19 is hereby set aside. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed. .