JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. 1. The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive relief:- “(i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner for the period w.e.f. 30.8.2007 to 29.10.2009 the period for which the petitioner was not allowed to mark her attendance, whereas, the petitioner has worked for this period without any break.” 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had obtained a diploma in Art and Craft in the year 2006 from Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur Deemed University, but no decision qua its recognition had been taken by the State Government by that time and it was because of this reason that even though the petitioner reported for duty, but she was not allowed to mark her attendance with effect from 30.08.2007 to 29.10.2009. 3. It appears that subsequently the respondents themselves based upon the decision of the UGC took a decision on 24.01.2009 and recognized the diploma granted by the Deemed Universities qua the students, who had undergone the diploma with effect from 01.06.2001 to 31.08.2005. The duration of the diploma is admittedly two years and, therefore, the same is duly covered by the decision of this Court in CWP No.2216/2007, titled as Babu Ram and ors. vs. State of H.P. and ors., dated 25.9.2008, wherein it was observed as under:- “Prima facie, there appears to be substance in the arguments of Ms. Dua. The decisions of the UGC is absolutely clear that one time ex post facto approval was granted to cover the students admitted between 1st June, 2001 and 31st August, 2005. Obviously, the students who had been admitted just before 31st August, 2005 could not have obtained their diploma before the said date. They would have to wait for one year or two years to obtain the diplomas. This aspect seems to have escaped the attention of the respondents.” 4. Even otherwise, the question is no longer res integra as stands concluded by a number of decisions of this Court as also the latest decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which in turn has been taken note of by this Bench in CWP No.2920 of 2016, titled as ‘Maheshwar Singh versus State of H.P. and others’, decided on 30.05.2018, wherein this Court has held as follows:- “2. Even though, the petition is vehemently opposed by the State on various grounds, but I find that the issue otherwise is no longer res integra in view of the decision of this Court in CWP No.2216/2007, titled as Babu Ram and ors. vs. State of H.P. and ors., dated 25.9.2008 and thereafter reiterated by this Court in CWP No.1065/2011, titled as Dharmender Kumar vs. State of H.P. and ors., dated 11.9.2012. 3. Apart from above, I find that the issue otherwise stands conclusively determined by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited vs. Rabi Sankar Patro and ors. (2018) 1 SCC 468 . 4. A perusal of the decision in Rabi Sankar Patro’s case (supra) would indicate that on the basis of a large number of complaints from individuals and organisations seeking clarification of study centers of deemed universities particularly those associated with (i) Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed University), Udaipur (ii) Allahabad Agricultural Institute (Deemed University), Allahabad and (iii) Institute of Advanced Studies in Education of Gandhi Vidya Mandir (IASE) (Deemed University), Sardarshahr, Rajasthan, a notice/circular was issued by the University Grant Commission (UGC) on 9.8.2005, wherein it was pointed out that above three deemed Universities had not been permitted to affiliate a College/Institute and these Institutions had also not been allowed to conduct any course through Distance Education Study Centre so far, by the Distance Education Council (DEC)/UGC and the students were advised to keep these things in mind while getting admission in deemed to be Universities. 5. On 30.8.2005, a communication was addressed by the UGC to JRN, whereby it was informed that the DEC had not recognized the distance education programme being conducted by JRN and further sought certain other information from the JRN. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 27.10.2005 was issued by the UGC to JRN for non-adherence to UGC norms regarding study centres and an explanation was sought within 15 days failing which appropriate action could be taken by the UGC. 6. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 27.10.2005 was issued by the UGC to JRN for non-adherence to UGC norms regarding study centres and an explanation was sought within 15 days failing which appropriate action could be taken by the UGC. 6. On 28.11.2005, All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) Grant of Approval for starting new technical institutions, introduction of courses or programmes and increase/variation of intake capacity of seats for the courses or programmes and Extension of approval for the existing technical institutions and maintenance of norms and standards in Universities including Deemed to be Universities Regulations, 2005 was issued, which again provided for grant of approval. 7. On 5.1.2006 a circular was issued by the DEC stating that the programmes of JRN through distance mode were not approved by the DEC. On 1.2.2006 a letter was addressed by JRN to UGC undertaking to close its distance education programme but requesting UGC to grant one time specific approval insofar as existing students in the programmes which were currently in operation. 8. On 5.4.2006 a notification was issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India (MHRD) in exercise of powers vested in the Central Government under Section 20(1) of UGC Act and under Section 20(1) of AICTE Act clarifying the role of the UGC and AICTE in maintaining standards of education in institutions notified as deemed to be universities. 9. In the meeting held by the UGC on 11.6.2006, the application preferred by JRN for ex-post facto approval was considered and the Chairman was authorized to do the needful through appropriate mechanism. The Chairman, UGC accordingly constituted a two members Committee with Legal Consultant, UGC, as Special Invitee. 9. In the meeting held by the UGC on 11.6.2006, the application preferred by JRN for ex-post facto approval was considered and the Chairman was authorized to do the needful through appropriate mechanism. The Chairman, UGC accordingly constituted a two members Committee with Legal Consultant, UGC, as Special Invitee. This Committee held meeting in the UGC office on 30.6.2006 and interacted with representatives of JRN and thereafter took the following decision: “After examining all the aspects regarding one time ex- post-facto approval to Sri Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur for the students admitted in various Degree courses under Distance Education Mode from 1st June, 2001 to 31st August, 2005 as also keeping in view the future of a large number of innocent students, the Committee recommended one-time ex-post-facto approval for the students admitted under the distance education mode by Sri Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur in Degree Courses from 1st June, 2001 to 31st August, 2005 subject to strict compliance and fulfillment of the following conditions: 1. The one time approval will cover students admitted between 1st June, 2001 and 31st August, 2005 admitted in Degree courses under Distance Education Mode only subject to the condition that Sri Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur shall ensure that it has permission of relevant Statutory Bodies or Councils wherever necessary and shall maintain the norms and standards laid down by the relevant Statutory Bodies and Councils. 2. Only such students shall be considered for regularization who fulfill the eligibility conditions, prevalent in other universities and prescribed by the statutory authorities for the courses they have been admitted. Non-eligible candidates shall be offered alternative courses according to their eligibility or the entire fee shall be refunded by the Vidyapeeth along with the compensation claimed…………………..” 10. Thereafter, on 3.7.2006 the UGC granted one time ex-post facto approval in respect of courses conducted by distance education mode by JRN from 1.6.2001 to 31.8.2005. The conditions mentioned by the committee in its recommendations dated 30.6.2006 were incorporated in this communication. 11. Thus, it stands established on record that the UGC has already granted ex-post facto approval in respect of courses conducted by distance education mode by JRN from 1.6.2001 to 31.8.2005 and these facts have been noticed by this Court in its decisions referred hereinabove and also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rabi Sankar Patro’s case (supra).” 5. 11. Thus, it stands established on record that the UGC has already granted ex-post facto approval in respect of courses conducted by distance education mode by JRN from 1.6.2001 to 31.8.2005 and these facts have been noticed by this Court in its decisions referred hereinabove and also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rabi Sankar Patro’s case (supra).” 5. Indubitably, the petitioner had been reporting for duty, but it was the respondents themselves, who did not permit her to mark her attendance and thereby deprived her of the salary for the period commencing from 30.08.2007 up to 29.10.2009. The respondents cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrongs and thereby depriving the petitioner of the salary for the aforesaid period. 6. In this view of the matter, I find merit in this petition and the same is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner the salary with effect from 30.08.2007 to 29.10.2009 within a period of four weeks, failing which the respondents shall further be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from 30th August, 2007 upto the date of payment. 7. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.