Judgment D. P. Wadhwa, S. J. Mukhopadhyaya, J. 1. The appellant - State of Bihar has filed the present appeal challenging one order dated 20th november, 1995, passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in C. W. J. C. No.10652 of 1994, 2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition of the petitioner (respondent herein) with the direction to the respondents (appellants herein) to provide the minimum of the scale of pay of the post of Lecturer in favour of the writ petitioner. It was further directed to consider the case of the writ petitioner for regular appointment, whenever such regular appointment will be made, after relaxing the age of the writ petitioner. 3. According to the Counsel for the appellants, the impugned order is conflicting and contrary to the Bench decision of this Court in the case of Lal bahadur Singh and 32 (thirty-two) others v. State of Bihar and others, reported in 1995 (2) P. L. J. R.474, particularly Para-graph-26 therein. It is submitted that the writ petitioner having been appointed without following the procedure of appointment on part-time basis, no relief could hare been granted in her favour so far the scale of pay is concerned. 4. This Court by its order dated 19th September, 1996, directed the parties to file further affidavit to state as to the number of lectures they are being taken up by regular Lecturers of the college and the part-time Lecturers in terms with the norms prescribed by the u. G. C. No such affidavit has been filed on behalf of the appellant-State of bihar. 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the writ petitioner (respondent herein ). It has been stated therein that a regular Lecturer generally takes 21 (twenty-one) classes in a week in terms with the U. G. C. norms. So far as the writ petitioner is concerned, it has been categorically stated that the writ petitioner (respondent herein) also takes 21 (twenty-one) classes in a week. 6. It has been stated therein that a regular Lecturer generally takes 21 (twenty-one) classes in a week in terms with the U. G. C. norms. So far as the writ petitioner is concerned, it has been categorically stated that the writ petitioner (respondent herein) also takes 21 (twenty-one) classes in a week. 6. So far as the case of Lal Bahadur singh (supra) is concerned, in that case, it was taken into account that generally a regular Lecturer takes 22 (twenty-two)classes in a week, whereas the part-time lecturer takes 22 (twenty-two) classes in a month, further, it will be evident from the said decision of this Court that therein objection was raised by the State of Bihar relating to legality of the appointment of that petitioner. 7. In the present case, admittedly, the writ petitioner (Respondent herein)performs the similar duties like that of a regular Lecturer. Further no pleading was made with regard to legality of appointment of the writ petitioner (respondent herein) before the learned single Judge. 8. Such being the position, the appellant (State of Bihar) cannot derive any benefit out of the judgment given by a Bench of this Court in the case of Lal bahadur Singh (supra ). 9. We find no illegality in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed. 10. However, it is expected that regular appointment will be made ex-peditiously, as observed by the learned single Judge. The appellant-State of bihar and its authorities are also directed to pay the salary in favour of the writ petitioner (Respondent herein)in terms with the decision of the learned single Judge positively within a period of two months. Appeal Dismissed.