Judgment M. Y. Eqbal, J. 1. - The 13 writ petitioners who claimed themselves to be the victims of exploitation at the hand of respondents filed this writ application for issuance of appropriate direction upon the respondents to make the services of the petitioners permanent and/or regularised and for the release of the salaries of the petitioners which are due from October, 1994 2. Some of the petitioners were appointed under respondent No.7, B. S. College, Lohardagga in the year 1986 and some were appointed in the year 1987 on daily wages as Grade-IV employees. Thereafter, efforts were made to appoint Grade-IV employees in view of the procedure under Article 16 of the Constitution of India and, accordingly, the advertisement was published on 13-3-1987 in the daily newspaper whereby the Registrar ranchi University, Ranchi invited applications for appointment/preparatior of panel in Grades-Ill and IV employees for Constituent Colleges under Ranch university including B. S. College lohardagga. By the said advertisement those employees who were already working on daily wages before March 1987, were also called upon to apply for the said posts under the Ranchi Univer sity. A copy of the advertisement issued by the Registrar, Ranchi University is annexure 1 to this writ application pursuant to that the petitioners who were working on daily wages applied for grade IV posts under respondent No.7, b. S. College, Lohardagga and accordingly, the Deputy Registrar, Ranchi university issued interview letters to the petitioners directing them to appear before the Interview Board and make themselves present in the campus of b. S. College, Lohardagga on 12-6-1987 in the morning. The petitioners were interviewed on the said date. After the said interview the petitioners waited for about one year for their appointment. Thereafter, on 7-5-1988 appointment letters were issued in the name of the petitioners appointing them on daily i wage basis in the said College. A copy of the appointment letter is Annexure 3 to the writ application. The petitioners, accordingly, joined the B. S. College, which is evident from the joining letter as contained in Annexure 4 to the writ application It is stated by the Petitioners that as they had already worked under the respondent Nos.4 to 7, they were regularised under the respondents vide letter dated 17-3-90 issued by the deputy Registrar of the University. The petitioners, accordingly, joined the B. S. College, which is evident from the joining letter as contained in Annexure 4 to the writ application It is stated by the Petitioners that as they had already worked under the respondent Nos.4 to 7, they were regularised under the respondents vide letter dated 17-3-90 issued by the deputy Registrar of the University. A copy of the notification by which the petitioners were regularised is Annexure-5 to the writ application. The petitioners further case was that respondents made provisional pay fixation as per the Government letter No.841 dated 13-4-1991, whereby the petitioners pay were provisionally fixed, which they were receiving till September, 1994. A copy of the letter issued by the Government dated 13-4-1991 is Annexure 6 to the writ application. It appears that in February, 1994 the university by notification dated 22-2-1994 decided to terminate the services of those employees working in Class III and Class IV grade of all the constituent colleges with effect from 1-6-1994 till additional posts are sanctioned by the government. The said notification said to have been issued in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 25-9-1991 in W. P. (Civil) No.409 of 1991. However, the said notification alleged to have never given effect to and the University issued another notification dated 14-5-1994 modifying the earlier notification/order dated 22-2-1994 (Annexure 7) whereby the university extended the period of services by another two months, i. e.31-7-1994. A copy of the said letter is Annexure 8 to the writ application. by another notification dated 26-7-1994 issued by the University the petitioners were asked to continue in service since they were working for a long time under the Staffing Pattern. It was further stated in the writ application that other employees of Grade-IV who were appointed on the basis of advertisement (Annexure-1) have been regularised on permanent basis by the ranchi University and they are getting their salaries. The letter of the University by which eight persons were regularised has been filed and marked as Annexure 10 to the writ application. The petitioners grievance is that although the petitioners have been working since 1988 and still they are working as Grade-IV employees in the said College but their salary has not been said since October, 1994. The letter of the University by which eight persons were regularised has been filed and marked as Annexure 10 to the writ application. The petitioners grievance is that although the petitioners have been working since 1988 and still they are working as Grade-IV employees in the said College but their salary has not been said since October, 1994. The University further issued another notification dated 21-1-1995 stating therein that the salary of the petitioners shall be released after funds are made available by the Government and in the said letter they were told that they are working on un-sanctioned posts. The petitioners further brought on record certain more facts by filing reply to the counter-affidavit. Beside other facts it is stated that after the filing counter-affidavit by the University two of the petitioners, namely, petitioner Nos.2 and 6 were regularised by the University vide memo No.8248 dated 25-5-19%. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents-University wherein it was stated, inter alia, that the petitioners, claim for regularisation of their services and for payment of salaries from October, 1994 is not maintainable as the petitioners appointment itself was illegal and was not made against any sanctioned posts and was in complete violation of Sec.35 of the Bihar State Universities act. It was further stated that since the state Government has not sanctioned the required posts under the staffing pattern, the University is unable to regularise their services and as such conditional order of termination has already been passed by the University which is evident from Annexure 7,8 and 9. It was further stated that the syndicate of the University took a decision terminating the services of the petitioners and other on 22-11-1994 which decision was communicated to the Principal of the College vide university letter dated 24-11-1994. A copy of the said letter is Annexure A to the counter-affidavit. Further case of the University was that the Principal of the College has no authority to make any appointment even on daily wage basis. The petitioners and others were engaged on daily wage basis by the order passed by late Dr. Lal Saheb Singh, the then Vice-Chancellor against unsanctioned posts without any authority and without obtaining the approval of the chancellor of the University. The petitioners and others were engaged on daily wage basis by the order passed by late Dr. Lal Saheb Singh, the then Vice-Chancellor against unsanctioned posts without any authority and without obtaining the approval of the chancellor of the University. It was further staled that in pursuance of the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court passed in writ petition (Civil) No.409 of 1991, several requests were sent to the state Government to sanction additional posts under the staffing pattern for the persons who were working upto 26-4-89. But the posts were not made available for those employees working in the b. S. College and the University had issued Annexures 8 and 9 in the meantime. As per the availability of posts some persons were regularised on the sanctioned posts on the basis of their seniority. The respondent-University brought on record the order passed by the Supreme Court an Annexures B and b/1 to the counter-affidavit. In a nut shell the stand of the University was that the petitioners could not be regularised as no posts have been sanctioned for them. As such the University terminated the services of the petitioners pursuant to the decision taken by the Syndicate on 22-11-1994. However, if additional posts are sanctioned by the State Government the cases of the petitioners can be considered. 4. I have heard Mr. A. Alam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. M. S. Anwar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-University and Mr. V. Shivnath, learned G. P.1. 5. From the affidavits of the parties, the facts, which are not in dispute, are that the petitioners were appointed on daily wage basis pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Ranchi university and after the petitioners succeeded in the interview the appointment letter dated 7th May, 1988 was issued by the Ranchi University appointing the petitioners and others on daily wage basis. After about 2 years the services of the petitioners, who were working, as such, were regularised by the University by issuing notification dated 17th march, 1990. Subsequently, the respondents made provisional pay fixation for the petitioners as per Government letter No.841 dated 13-4-1991, whereby the petitioners pay were provisionally fixed which the petitioners were receiving till September, 1994. After about 2 years the services of the petitioners, who were working, as such, were regularised by the University by issuing notification dated 17th march, 1990. Subsequently, the respondents made provisional pay fixation for the petitioners as per Government letter No.841 dated 13-4-1991, whereby the petitioners pay were provisionally fixed which the petitioners were receiving till September, 1994. The complication arises only after a letter was issued by Commissioner-cum-Secretary of the education Department of the Government of Bihar directing the University to cancel the order of regularisation made during the period of late Dr. Lal saheb Singh, the then Vice-Chancellor and also to get the matter enquired. A committee was constituted and on the basis of its report and recommendation an order was issued by the University on.2-12-1990 terminating/cancelling all such illegal appointments. The said order of the University dated 2-12-1990 and the advertisement was challenged in this Court in C. W. J. C. No.2556 of 1990 (R) and the said writ application was dismissed by this Court in terms of an order dated 20-12-1990. Thereafter, the bihar State Universities and Colleges employees, Federation moved the Hon ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.409 of 1991 and the Hon ble supreme Court by its order dated 25-9-1991 disposed of the said case with a direction to consider the case in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the employees Federation and the State government on 26-4-1989. For better appreciation of the order dated 25-9-1991 passed by the Hon ble Supreme court, it is reproduced hereinbelow: "after hearing learned Counsel for the parties we direct the respondents to consider the petitioners case for absorption strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the Bihar State Universities and Colleges Employees Federation and the State Government on 26-4-1989 the terms and conditions of which are incorporated in the Governments letter dated 1st May, 1989 notwithstanding the directions issued by the University in its letter dated 9th March, 1991. It is made clear that the respondents are free to terminate the services of those who are not absorbed in accordance with the staffing pattern and other conditions contained in the agreement. It is made clear that the respondents are free to terminate the services of those who are not absorbed in accordance with the staffing pattern and other conditions contained in the agreement. The Ranchi University will take immediate steps to determine the staffing pattern and other details in accordance with the agreement and forward the list within two months to the State government and the letter will consider the same and issue orders within one month thereafter. " this order would apply to the petitioners. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. " 6. It further appears that since the order of the Supreme Court was not complied with, two contempt applications were filed being contempt Case nos.280 of 1993 and 404 of 1993 and the Hon ble Supreme Court passed order on 17-1-1994 directing the State government to sanction the posts to the University and, thereafter, the university was directed to issue orders for regularisation. The order dated 17-1-1994 passed by the Supreme Court is quoted hereinbelow: "by our order dated 25-9-1991 we did not intend regularisation of those who were not in employment at the relevant point of time. By confining the orders to the petitioners it was not intended that they should be regularised even if they were not found to be in employment. True it is that the State initially regularised certain employees but when it realised that it had regularised those who were not in service, it cancelled the appointments. There are 955 posts which are intended to be regularised and this must be done in regard to those who were at the relevant point of time in the employ of the University. Therefore, when the State cancelled appointments of those who were found to have been erroneously regularised and appointed on the basis of certain lists sent by the former Vice-Chancellor, it did not commit any contempt of this Court. This court had never ordered regularisation of those not in service. But all the same, the order of this Court still remains to be complied. Therefore, let the process of identifying those who are entitled to be regularised be expedited and in doing so if there has been any wrong termination that may also be corrected so that those entitled to be employed in the 955 posts should get the benefit of the Courts order. Therefore, let the process of identifying those who are entitled to be regularised be expedited and in doing so if there has been any wrong termination that may also be corrected so that those entitled to be employed in the 955 posts should get the benefit of the Courts order. We would, therefore, expect the process to be completed as early as possible. Mr. B. B. Singh, the learned Counsel for the State of Bihar, says that instead of the Government undertaking the exercise, in view of the provisions of the enactment the Government would transfer the posts to the University and the University would then be required to examine who are entitled to be regularised/appointed on those posts and issue the orders. Let the posts be transferred within a weeks time and thereafter let the University complete the process within three weeks. The Contempt petitions will stand disposed of accordingly. The application for intervention will also stand disposed of by this order. " 7. From the order passed by the supreme Court it appears that a cut-off date was fixed as per the agreement and the persons who were appointed before the cut-off date were ordered to be regularised and for that purpose it was agreed that the Government would transfer the posts to the University and the University would then be required to examine who were entitled to be regularised/appointed on those posts and, accordingly, orders will be issued. The stand of the University in this writ application is that after the order of the supreme Court the services of the petitioners were terminated as per the decision of the Syndicate dated 22-4-1994. From the office order dated 22-2-1994 (Annexure 7) issued by the university it appears that the University decided to terminate the services of the employees with effect from 1-6-1994 unless requisite number of additional posts are sanctioned by the Government prior to 31-5-1994 for their regularisation. In the said office order it is mentioned that the order was issued in the light of the order passed by the Supreme court on 25-9-1991. Surprisingly, the said office order (Annexure-7) was modified by the University by another order dated 14-5-1994 (Annexure 8)whereby the period from which the services shall Be terminated was extended for two months, i. e.31-7-1994. In the said office order it is mentioned that the order was issued in the light of the order passed by the Supreme court on 25-9-1991. Surprisingly, the said office order (Annexure-7) was modified by the University by another order dated 14-5-1994 (Annexure 8)whereby the period from which the services shall Be terminated was extended for two months, i. e.31-7-1994. On 26-7-1994 another office order was issued by the University accepting the position that in view of the order of the Supreme court dated 25-9-1991 all such persons who were serving Ranchi University on purely temporary basis on or before 26-4-1989 was continuing in the services of the University until further orders provisionally subject to the conditions stated therein. Mr. Anwar, learned counsel appearing for the University does not dispute the correctness of Annexure 9 but submitted that as per the conditions contained in the said office order regularisation was to be done only against the sanctioned posts made available by the State Government. From the aforesaid office order dated 26-7-1994 atleast the petitioners became entitle to be regularised as admittedly they were working much before cut-off date, i. e.26-4-1989. In the meantime, according to the respondent-university the syndicate took a decision to terminate the services of the petitioners and other persons and according to the respondent-University the said decision was communicated to the Principal of the college vide letter dated 24-11-1994 as contained in Annexurea to the counter-affidavit. 8. Mr. Alam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, challenged the said letter, Annexure as being forged and fabricated document, inasmuch as such letter was never issued by the University nor received by the principal of the College. Be that as it may, there is nothing on record to show that the services of the petitioners have been terminated at any point of time or the petitioners have not been working in the said College. On the contrary, from the office order and the letters referred to hereinabove it appears that the petitioners were entitled to be regularised as admittedly the petitioner have been working since before 26-4-1989. From the letter of the Principal of the said College dated 13-5-1996 addressed to the Registrar of the University (Annexure 13) it is evident that the petitioners have been working regularly. From the letter of the Principal of the said College dated 13-5-1996 addressed to the Registrar of the University (Annexure 13) it is evident that the petitioners have been working regularly. By the said letter the Principal of the college requested the University to consider the case of the petitioners and issue necessary direction for payment of salary. From the office order dated 22-2-1994 it further appears that pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court the services of Grades III and IV employees of different colleges, who-were appointed on or before 26-4-1989, have been regularised by the University. Not only that the University further issued office order on 20-4-1996 regularising the service of the Grade IV employees working in the Marwari College and allowed them to draw salary of Rs.1500 till their services are permanently regularised against the sanctioned posts. Mr. Anwar submitted that the office order dated 20-4-96 regularising the services of these employees of Marwari College by the University is illegal and if such regularisation is made by the University illegally that will not give right to the petitioners for their regularisation in service. One more interesting fact is worth to be noticed that after filing of the counter-affidavit two of the petitioners, namely, petitioner Nos.2 and 6 have been regularised in service by the University by issuance of memo no.8248 dated 25-5-1996, copy of which is Annexure 16 to the writ application. The very fact that two of the petitioners have been regularised itself proves that the services of the petitioners have not been terminated at any point to time and they have been continued in service. As stated above, the petitioners are rightly continuing in service and they are entitled for regularisation inasmuch as they were appointed much before 26-4-1989. 9. Mr. Anwar heavily relied upon two decisions of this court in the case of manoj Prasad and others V/s. Ranchi university and others reported in (1993)2 BLJR 893 and in the case of Akhilanand Pandey and others V/s. Ranchi university and others, reported in 1995 (1) BLJR 678 and submitted that in view of the aforementioned decisions the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. I do not find any force in the submission of the learned Counsel. In manoj Prasad V/s. Ranchi University (supra) the fact of the case was totally different. I do not find any force in the submission of the learned Counsel. In manoj Prasad V/s. Ranchi University (supra) the fact of the case was totally different. The appointment of the petitioners were made in breach of mandatory provision of Sec.35 of the act and as the appointment was illegal it was terminated. A question arose with regard to payment of wages and it was held that since the Principal had no authority to allow the petitioners to work despite the order of termination of their services, the petitioners would not be entitled to receive the wages. In Akhilaland Pandey V/s. Ranchi University a similar question arose as to whether petitioners who were appointed in violation of the provision of Sec.35 of the Bihar State Universities Act would be entitled to claim salary. Dismissing the writ application this Court held that such appointees would not be entitled to get their salaries. The fact of these cases are totally distinguishable. Here, in the instant case, the petitioners were appointed initially on daily wages by the University in the year 1988 and their services were regularised in 1990 and, thereafter, when a dispute arose with regard to termination of services of the employees who were appointed without any sanctioned posts the dispute was resolved by a valid agreement dated 26-4-1989 and a final seal was given by the Supreme Court by issuance of necessary directions, inter alia, that those persons who were appointed on or before 26-4-1989 are entitled to be regularised. Pursuant to the order of the supreme Court in many colleges, the university regularised the services of grade-IV employees who were appointed before 26-4-1989. In some Colleges the services of the similarly situated Grade-IV employees were provisionally regularised by the university awaiting sanction of the posts of the government and those employees were ordered to be paid Rs.1500/- per month till the services are regularised. This type of double standard adopted by the university is liable to be deprecated. I have failed to understand when similarly situated persons have been regularised by the University and even if not regularised for want of sanctioned posts they have been paid fixed salary awaiting sanctioned posts then why the petitioners shall not be regularised in the same terms. 10. I have failed to understand when similarly situated persons have been regularised by the University and even if not regularised for want of sanctioned posts they have been paid fixed salary awaiting sanctioned posts then why the petitioners shall not be regularised in the same terms. 10. In my considered opinion the petitioners in the light of the order of the Supreme Court, are entitled to be regularised as and when posts are sanctioned by the Government and are entitled to get salary atleast at the rate which is being paid by the University to the employees of Marwari College, ranchi. 11. For the reason aforesaid this writ application is allowed and the respondent-University is directed to regularise the services of the petitioners against the sanctioned posts available or as and when the posts are sanctioned by the Government. Till then the petitioners shall be paid salary at the rate of Rs.1500 which the respondent-University is paying to the similarly situated Grade IV employees of Marwari College, Ranchi. Petition Allowed.