Judgment 1. The case relates to payment of wages of petitioner who was engaged on 17th May, 1989 on daily wage to perform the duty of Lab. Incharge, Psychology Department of Gore Lal Mehta College, Banmankhi. 2. Grievance has been made that the Respondents are not paying wage since November, 1996, though the service of petitioner was approved by University on 14th September 95. Annexure-10 a letter dated 24th October, 1989 shows that the post of Lab. Incharge has been sanctioned/deemed to be sanctioned for the college concerned. 3. According to the counsel for the University the engagement of petitioner is ab initio void, the same having made by the Principal of the College, without any sanction of the post. No advertisement was issued nor any procedure of selection followed. 4. Reliance was also placed on State Governments decision communicated to the University, vide letter no. 1080 dated 23rd July 98. 5. From bare perusal of the enclosure i.e. Annexure-1 dated 24th October, 1989 it appears that the post of Lab. Incharge was created for the College, in question. 6. So far as following he procedure for appointment is concerned, the engagement having made on daily wage, I feel that the total procedure of regular appointment like advertisement etc. was not required to be followed for such stop gap arrangement. 7. The fact pleaded and not disputed is that a notice was issued on 12th May 89 and on interview and selection by a Committee, the name of petitioner was forwarded. The panel has also been enclosed with the same. Even if such procedure is not recognised for regular appointment, such procedure can suffice in the matter of engagement on daily wage basis, as a measure of stop gap arrangement. 8. This apart, the Respondents having taken work from the petitioner and the University having approved the engagement, for the purpose of payment, they cannot raise the dispute relating to the nature of appointment and engagement of petitioner. If the State Govt. has directed to disengage the daily wage employee, it was well within the purview of the University to disengage such daily wage employee, including the petitioner. However, there is nothing on the record to suggest that any formal order issued by the University disengaging the petitioner from daily wage. 9. If the State Govt. has directed to disengage the daily wage employee, it was well within the purview of the University to disengage such daily wage employee, including the petitioner. However, there is nothing on the record to suggest that any formal order issued by the University disengaging the petitioner from daily wage. 9. In the facts and circumstances, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for wages as he was receiving prior to November, 1996 for the period he has actually performed the duty. The Respondents are, accordingly, directed to release such admitted wages, including arrears within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 10. However, this order will not stand in the way of the University to pass any order, in accordance with law. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.