JUDGMENT : Shircy V., J. Challenge in the appeal is to the legality of the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge dated 14th August 2014 in writ petition No.24085 of 2010, filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner)claiming salary for the period she worked as junior lecturer in Carmel college, Mala. The appellants (hereinafter referred to as respondents) in the appeal are the respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition and the respondents 4 to 6 in the writ petition are respondents 2 to 4 in the appeal. 2. Factual position in a nutshell are as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Lecturer in the Department of Botany in Carmel College, Mala, a private aided college affiliated to Calicut University as per an order dated 18.1.1997. She was holding M.Sc. Botany, M.Phil Botany and B.Ed at the time of her appointment as Junior Lecturer. Her appointment by Ext. PI was approved by the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P2 on 12.5.1998. While she was working in the college, the Pre-Degree course was delinked from colleges resulting in excess teaching and non-teaching staff and therefore excess staff were directed to be deployed to Higher Secondary Schools, as per Ext.P3 Government order dated 5.10.2000. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued an order on 18.7.2002, fixing the work load in respect to the college where she was working and as per Ext.P4 order, three (3) posts were sanctioned in the Department of Botany and out of the same, the number of teachers are one (1) Lecturer and one (1) Junior Lecturer and they are one Uma Maheshwari (Lecturer) and the petitioner (Junior Lecturer). Later, the 2nd respondent directed to fill up the post by redeploying a Junior Lecturer and this petitioner was continuing as Junior Lecturer in the department. The third post was not filled up. In the year 2008, she acquired Ph.D. and after that her service was regularized as Lecturer on 24.11.2008 by the University by Ext.P6 order. She was paid salary up to the month of November, 2001. Thereafter salary was not paid till she was regularized as Lecturer in the Department of Botany, after acquiring Ph.D. on 24.11.2008. Hence, this writ petition claiming salary for the period of 84 months from November, 2001 till October 2008. 3. She was paid salary up to the month of November, 2001. Thereafter salary was not paid till she was regularized as Lecturer in the Department of Botany, after acquiring Ph.D. on 24.11.2008. Hence, this writ petition claiming salary for the period of 84 months from November, 2001 till October 2008. 3. The 3rd respondent in the counter affidavit contended that the appointment of the petitioner as Junior Lecturer, was approved but when the Pre-degree was delinked, she was liable to be terminated. Hence the salary from November 2001 was withheld and she had no privilege to continue as Junior Lecturer, from November 2001 onwards. Her appointment as Lecturer in the Department of Botany was approved by the Calicut University only with effect from 24.11.2008 after she acquired Ph.D in the year 2008. Hence she is not entitled to claim arrears of salary for the period from November 2001 to October 2008 as she had worked in a non existing post. 4. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to draw and disburse the salary due to her for 84 months in the category as Junior Lecturer and directed to issue orders to that effect within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The said judgment is assailed in this appeal. 5. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader for the respondents. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Botany at Carmel College, Mala, an aided college affiliated to the Calicut University as per Ext.P1 dated 18.1.1997. Her appointment was approved by the 3rd respondent on 12.5.1998 by Ext.P2. Subsequently, the Pre-Degree course was delinked from colleges. Consequent to the same, by Ext.P3 order, the excess teaching staff were deployed to Higher Secondary Schools. Ext.P4 is the order of the 2nd respondent by which the work load per teacher was fixed as 16 hours per week. From Ext.P4, it could be seen that the work load assessed for the Department of Botany consequent to the delinking of Pre-Degree course is 34' hrs. The number of teachers permissible as per the assessed work load as on 1.6.2001 was two (2) and the sanctioned strength was three (3). From Ext.P4, it could be seen that the work load assessed for the Department of Botany consequent to the delinking of Pre-Degree course is 34' hrs. The number of teachers permissible as per the assessed work load as on 1.6.2001 was two (2) and the sanctioned strength was three (3). According to the petitioner she was actually working in the college as there was sufficient work load and sanctioned post was also available and while working as Junior Lecturer in the college she was given regularization as Lecturer on 24.11.2008 as per Ext.P6, when she acquired Ph.D. But her grievance is that she has not been paid salary from November 2001 till October, 2008 though she actually worked in the college. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents refuted the claim of the petitioner and argued that she could not continue in the college as Lecturer after the Pre-Degree course was delinked and therefore she can claim salary only from 24.11.2008. 8. It is evident by Ext.P4 that when Pre- Degree course was delinked from the college, during the academic year 2001-02, the number of sanctioned post in the Department of Botany was three and the number of teachers permissible as per the assessed workload of 34 hours was two. In Column No.7 of the schedule attached to Ext.P4 it is specifically stated that the number of teachers working during the relevant time was one Lecturer plus one Junior Lecturer though the number of sanctioned post was three. One post of Lecturer in the Department of Botany was lying vacant during the relevant time and in Column No.12, it is stated that one junior lecturer has to be redeployed. Admittedly during 2001-2002 only one lecturer was working in the Department of Botany and that was Uma Maheswari M.A. Her case that she was working as Junior Lecturer and there were three sanctioned posts and one post was lying vacant, and she continued there as Junior Lecturer, even after the Pre-Degree course was delinked, had not been denied by the respondents and it remain uncontroverted. It is nobody's case that she was deployed elsewhere when Pre-Degree course was delinked during 2001- 02. On the other hand she was working there in the College as Junior Lecturer. It is nobody's case that she was deployed elsewhere when Pre-Degree course was delinked during 2001- 02. On the other hand she was working there in the College as Junior Lecturer. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the respondents even though filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition, no contention had been raised to the effect that she did not work in the college during the relevant time. But the stand taken by the respondents is that she had worked in a non existing post. The contention that she had worked in a non existing post appears to be incorrect as the number of sanctioned posts were three (3) and the number of teachers working were two (2) (including the petitioner) and the number of vacancy to be filled up was one (1). So also, it is seen that one Junior Lecturer had to be redeployed in the same department. Such being the case the contention that she had worked in a non existing post is without any merits and the fact that she worked in the college during the relevant time stands established by the materials available before us. So in short, the petitioner who had been appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Botany on 18.1.1997 as per Ext.P1 continued in the college even when the Pre-Degree course was delinked from the college. 9. The petitioner acquired Ph.D. during 2008 and subsequently, she had approached the University, the 4th respondent for regularization of her appointment as Lecturer with effect from 24.11.2008. By Ext.P6 order, the University had accorded sanction on 6.11.2009 for regularization of her appointment as lecturer in the department of botany at Carmel College Mala with effect from 24.11.2008, the date of her acquiring Ph.D. It would be relevant to mention that acting upon the representation of similarly placed teachers the Government by Ext.P7, had directed to disburse salary to those who had actually worked in the colleges. Ext.P8 and P9 are the copies of two judgments of this Court directing the Government to disburse salary to the petitioners therein who had worked as Junior Lecturers in colleges and thereafter deployed as Higher Secondary School Teachers as well to those who were not paid salary till deployment in view of delinking of the Pre-Degree course. Ext.P8 and P9 are the copies of two judgments of this Court directing the Government to disburse salary to the petitioners therein who had worked as Junior Lecturers in colleges and thereafter deployed as Higher Secondary School Teachers as well to those who were not paid salary till deployment in view of delinking of the Pre-Degree course. Ext.P10 is the order issued by the Government in the light of the judgment referred as Ext.P9 treating the period as duty. 10. From the records, it could be seen that her claim cannot be negated for the reasons that she was appointed on regular basis and that her appointment was approved by the second respondent and she actually worked in the vacancy which was available even after Pre-Degree course was delinked as the sanctioned strength was three (3) during the relevant time. So we are of the view that she is entitled for the salary during the period she actually worked for the reasons stated above. 11. Now the crucial question to be answered is whether she is entitled to claim salary for the period from November 2001 to October 2008. The learned Government Pleader would argue that even if she is entitled for any salary, she cannot claim the salary beyond the period of three years as it is barred by limitation. He relies on the judgment in Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh [2009(1) KLT 101(SC)] wherein it is held that: "Normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a Writ Petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception, if the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the re-opening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. But there is an exception to the exception, if the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the re-opening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or re-fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. In so far as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the Writ petition." 12. It is further held as follows: "4. The principles underlying continuing wrongs and recurring/successive wrongs have been applied to service law disputes. A 'continuing wrong' refers to a single wrongful act which causes a continuing injury. 'Recurring/successive wrongs' are those which occur periodically, each wrong giving rise to a distinct and separate cause of action. This Court in Balakrishna S.P.Waghmare v. Shree Dhayaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan ( AIR 1959 SC 798 ), explained the concept of continuing wrong (in the context of S.23 of Limitation Act, 1908 corresponding to S.22 of Limitation Act, 1963): ".........it is the very essence of a continuing wrong that it is an act which creates a continuing source of injury and renders the doer of the act responsible and liable for the continuance of the said injury. If the wrongful act causes an injury which is complete, there is no continuing wrong even though the damage resulting from the act may continue. If, however, a wrongful act is of such a character that the injury caused by it itself continues, then the act constitutes a continuing wrong. In this connection, it is necessary to draw a distinction between the injury caused by the wrongful act and what may be described as the effect of the said injury." 13. If, however, a wrongful act is of such a character that the injury caused by it itself continues, then the act constitutes a continuing wrong. In this connection, it is necessary to draw a distinction between the injury caused by the wrongful act and what may be described as the effect of the said injury." 13. "In Raghavanunni v Union of India (2007 (2) KLT SN 39 (C. NO.55) it is held as : "The Tribunal misdirected itself when it treated the appellant's claim as "one time action" meaning thereby that it was not a continuing wrong based on a recurring cause of action. The claim to be paid the correct salary computed on the basis of proper pay fixation, is a right which subsists during the entire tenure of service and can be exercised at the time of each payment of the salary when the employee is entitled to salary computed correctly in accordance with the rules. This right of a government servant to be paid the correct salary throughout his tenure according to computation is made in accordance with the rules. When a retired employee approaches the Tribunal, the question to be considered is whether he is entitled to the amount claimed. A Government or a Public Sector Undertaking cannot plead the question of delay or technical reasons, to defeat the claim if employee is entitled to get the benefit from the employer especially when claim is recurring every month." 14. It is to be noted that the cause of action in the case at hand is payment of salary and it is recurring. But the writ petition was filed only in the year 2010. The petitioner has not furnished any explanation for the inordinate delay in claiming the relief. 15. In State of Orissa and Another v Mamata Mohanty 2011(3) SCC 436 , the Supreme Court while dealing with the application of S.3 of the Limitation Act held as follows: ''Needless to say that the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply in writ jurisdiction. However, the doctrine of Limitation being based on public policy, the principles enshrined therein are applicable and writ petitions are dismissed at initial stage on the ground of delay and laches''. 16. Here, it is significant to note that no one is affected by paying the eligible salary to the petitioner. However, the doctrine of Limitation being based on public policy, the principles enshrined therein are applicable and writ petitions are dismissed at initial stage on the ground of delay and laches''. 16. Here, it is significant to note that no one is affected by paying the eligible salary to the petitioner. No hardship or injustice is caused to third parties by disbursing the amount actually due to her. Relying on the principles laid down in the decisions (supra) we are also not prepared to make an observation to deprive a relief which she is legally entitled. But the fact that similar relief was granted by this court in a similar case cannot be a proper explanation for the delay or laches. Therefore, the claim for salary of the petitioner is restricted for a period of three years, back to 2008 and it is not granted for the entire period from 2001 to 2008 as claimed, applying the doctrine of limitation based on public policy. The Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly.