JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to make payment of arrears of salary from March, 1986 to 31.10.1996 of the petitioner, which comes to Rs. 1,67,090.07/-along with interest thereupon in addition to compensation and cost. 2. The facts, which are necessary for adjudication, as delineated in the writ application, in brief is that to meet the shortage of lecturers in Ranchi University, as per the direction of H.E. the Governor-cum-Chancellor of the then unified State of Bihar to utilize the services of the qualified persons against the sanctioned posts of lecturers on lecture basis remuneration, the Registrar of the University vide letter dated 7th November, 1984 notified scheme for appointment of lecturers. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner being qualified was appointed on the post of lecturer w.e.f 27.10.1986 in Baharagora College in the department of English against sanctioned and vacant post. It has further been averred that petitioner continued to work on the post in question from January, 1986 to November, 1996 but no payment was made. In this regard, it has further been averred that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 11078 of 1989 and analogous cases, preferred by ‘Ranchi University Ad hoc Teachers Association’, vide order dated 06.12.1989 with corrigendum dated 15.01.1990 directed all Universities of Bihar for status quo in respect of continuance of ad hoc teachers, however, direction was also given to University Service Commission to advertise the post of ad hoc teachers for direct recruitment within four months giving age relaxation. It has been averred that since the petitioner had been continuously worked for more than 14 years as Lecturer in the Department of English, he ought to have been regularized but even then when order was passed, the petitioner represented before the respondents-authorities but it did not evoke any response. In this regard, it has further been submitted that even the Human Resources Development Department, Higher Education, Government of Jharkhand, in compliance of order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the Registrar of the three Universities to send the names of ad hoc teachers who worked till 10.02.1989 and further the Joint Secretary, H.R.D. Department, Higher Education has also requested the Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission to conduct special interview for ad hoc teachers who worked till 10.02.1989 for their regularization and absorption. It has further been averred that principal of the aforesaid college sent the names of ad hoc teachers, who worked against the sanctioned posts along with their bank account number, in which the name of the petitioner finds place at serial no. 10, which testifies and corroborates the appointment and working of the petitioner as lecturer in the department of English, but even also no payment has been made for the period aforesaid. 3. Heard Dr. Shree Krishna Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, Sr. S.C. I for the respondents-State and Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, for the respondents Nos. 4 and 5. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that the respondents are bound to pay the salary of the petitioner for the period aforesaid, as the petitioner worked as lecturer in the Department of English during that period but no salary has been paid to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even the name of the petitioner finds place in the list of ad hoc teachers prepared by the H.R.D Department at serial no. 10. It has been submitted that at the one hand respondents are accepting that petitioner worked as an ad hoc lecturer but on the other hand they are denying the payment in utter violation of Articles 14, 21, 39D and 300A of the Constitution of India. In the matter raised through ‘Ranchi University ad hoc Teachers’ Association’, the Hon’ble Supreme Court not only directed to make payment of arrears of salary but also directed to absorb such teachers. So far as question of delay and laches in approaching this Court is concerned, the petitioner repeatedly represented before the authorities for making payment of his legitimate arrears of salary. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision rendered in the case of Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors through Power of Attorney Holder Vs. M.I.D.C & Ors as reported in (2013) 1 SCC 353 . Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government of Jharkhand vide its Cabinet’s decision took the responsibility and burden of payment of entire pre and post dated 15.11.2010 of salary arrears of the employees Universities and Colleges of the State upon itself and notified the same vide letter dated 29.08.2006 without subject of adjustment between States of Bihar and Jharkhand. In such view of the matter, respondents may be directed to make payment of entire dues amount. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision rendered in the case of Dr. Upendra Kishore Bakshi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors as passed in W.P. (S) No. 2859 of 2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that a number of members of Hon’ble Assembly of Jharkhand including Hon’ble Speaker, Jharkhand Assembly supported the cause of ad hoc teachers and recommended for their regularization and payment of ad hoc teachers. 5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel I appearing for the respondents-State submitted that contentions and averments raised on behalf of writ petitioners in the writ petition is denied and disputed. Furthermore, the grievance of the petitioner is within the domain of the University and the Department is nowhere liable for payment of arrears of salary, if any. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents-Kolhan University submitted that the petitioner claims for payment for the period 1986 to 1996 i.e. for the period when the State of Jharkhand was not in existence. The petitioner ought to have staked his claim before the appropriate State and claim of the petitioner cannot be adjudicated without impleading the State of Bihar. Hence, the writ application is barred by non-joinder of necessary party. Furthermore, the petitioner is claiming arrears of salary after more than two decades and no cogent ground has been mentioned for such inordinate delay, hence on the ground of delay and laches also, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the respondents-University referred to the decision rendered in the case of CMWS & Sewage Board and Others Vs. T.T. Murali Babu as reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 . Learned counsel for the respondents-University further submitted that in view of the law laid down in U.P. Jal Nigam & Anr. Vs. Jaswant Singh & Anr as reported in (2006) 14 SCC 464, a person who is not vigilant about his rights and acquiesces with his situation cannot claim any relief later. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents-University further submitted that in view of the law laid down in U.P. Jal Nigam & Anr. Vs. Jaswant Singh & Anr as reported in (2006) 14 SCC 464, a person who is not vigilant about his rights and acquiesces with his situation cannot claim any relief later. 7. On merit of the case, learned counsel for the respondents-University submitted that in order to claim any payment for having worked as lecturer in English in Bahragora College the petitioner must prove that he was validly appointed to that post by the authority competent to make such an appointment even on an ad hoc basis. In the case at hand, the petitioner has not produced a chit of paper to show that the petitioner was ever appointed as lecturer by the vice-chancellor of Ranchi University who alone had the authority to make such an appointment even on ad hoc basis for a maximum period of 6 months and Principal of the college has no authority to make such appointment or make payment but even without any valid and legally sustainable scheme, the petitioner has been paid Rs. 25,186.27 by the then Principal of Baharagora College, Baharagora for the classes actually engaged/work done by the petitioner and no more payment is due to the petitioner for any reason whatsoever. Even assuming that petitioner is entitled to payment of Rs. 25/-per class, the petitioner has not furnished details of the classes actually engaged by him for which no payment has been made to him and for which he claims to be paid. So far order of Hon’ble Supreme Court, as enclosed by the writ petitioner as Annexure 3, it does not cover the case of the petitioner as he was never appointed on ad hoc basis by the competent authority. As a matter of fact, he was simply permitted to be engaged for few classes by the then principal of the college, against which he has been paid and there is no chit of paper on the record produced by the petitioner to show that petitioner was ever appointed on ad hoc basis. 8. From the pleadings available on record, it appears that there is no undisputed document which shows that initially the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc/temporary/daily wages/casual teachers by the competent authority. 8. From the pleadings available on record, it appears that there is no undisputed document which shows that initially the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc/temporary/daily wages/casual teachers by the competent authority. Merely reflecting his name in one chit of paper at Annexure 5 to the writ application furnished by Prof-In-Charge, Bahargora College showing him as working as ad hoc Lecturer in Bahargora College, would not ipso fact create any right upon the petitioner, as claimed for, as very appointment of the petitioner is shrouded with obscurity. 9. Much emphasis has been laid by counsel for the petitioner on letter dated 07th November, 1984, from perusal of which it appears that principals of the colleges were instructed to utilize services of qualified persons against sanctioned posts of lecturers on lecture basis remuneration @ Rs 25 per lecture subject to maximum of Rs. 700/-per month. In that letter there is no mention that the lecturers be appointed on lecture basis and the respondents-University has come with specific plea that the petitioner has been paid Rs. 25,186.27 by the then Principal of Baharagora College, Baharagora for the classes actually engaged/work done by the petitioner and no more payment is due to the petitioner. But the petitioner is disputing this fact that rest amount of Rs. 1,67,090.07/-is still due and the same be paid with interest. These all are disputed question of facts, which cannot be adjudicated by writ Court and no writ of mandamus can be issued in such situation. 10. So far the decision rendered in SLP No. 11078 of 1989 and analogous cases, preferred by Ranchi University Ad hoc Teachers Association is concerned, the issue before the Hon’ble Apex Court was in different context and no benefit can be given to the petitioner. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of decision is quoted herein below: “A large number of Ad-hoc teachers were appointed from time to time either by Vice-Chancellors of Universities or by Principals of Colleges, some of them were appointed against sanctioned posts while others even without sanctioned posts. They were paid only a fixed sum as salary and not in regular pay-scale. Some of them were sought to be disengaged or terminated and they approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for relief. Particularly, the ad-hoc teachers of Ranchi University were the petitioners before the High Court.” 11. They were paid only a fixed sum as salary and not in regular pay-scale. Some of them were sought to be disengaged or terminated and they approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for relief. Particularly, the ad-hoc teachers of Ranchi University were the petitioners before the High Court.” 11. On the question of inordinate delay in approaching the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner regularly submitted representation but as per law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Tripura Vs. Arabinda Chakraborty as reported in (2014) 6 SCC 460 , in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that ‘repeated representation shall not save limitation’. 12. As a logical sequitur to the facts, reasons, judicial pronouncements and discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs and conclusions arrived at by this Court, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed.