ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 17.11.2014 by which an Special Appeal Defective No.941 of 2014, filed by the appellant, has been dismissed. 3. Appellant was appointed on ad hoc basis as an Assistant Teacher on 01.01.1990 in an institution, namely, Adarsh Inter College Mahau District, Aligarh, which was recognized and aided institution. The writ petition was filed by the appellant claiming payment of salary which was disposed of on 17.01.1992 directing that District Inspector of Schools shall consider the representation of the appellant. District Inspector of Schools, vide its order dated 23.12.1992, rejected the representation of the appellant, which was made subject matter of challenge in the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1566/1993. In the said writ petition an interim order was passed directing the respondent(s) to release the salary of the appellant as Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade w.e.f January, 1993. The said writ petition remained pending in the High Court and was ultimately dismissed on 19.11.2010. Against the dismissal of the writ petition, special appeal was filed, which was dismissed on 17.11.2014. By virtue of the interim order, the appellant was paid salary as Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade. The appellant also attained age of superannuation on 30.06.2013. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no other appointment was made on the post which was held by the appellant, which was a substantive vacancy. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even if the requisition was not sent, before making the appointment of the appellant and which was ultimately sent on 17.08.1990, he could have been approved at least after two months from 17.08.1990. He further submitted that in so far as ban on appointment is concerned, the same was imposed w.e.f. 31.08.1991, which was subsequent to the appointment of the appellant and was not applicable. 6. Learned counsel for the State opposing the submissions of counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant?s appointment was never approved, hence he was not entitled for any salary. He further submitted that even after dismissal of the writ petition, he was paid salary till he attained the age of superannuation. 6. Learned counsel for the State opposing the submissions of counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant?s appointment was never approved, hence he was not entitled for any salary. He further submitted that even after dismissal of the writ petition, he was paid salary till he attained the age of superannuation. The prayer made by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that since appellant continued to work and received salary he is also entitled for retiral benefits, is refuted by the counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the State submitted that there is no declaration with regard to the appointment that the same was made in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the provisions of law and, therefore, appellant is not entitled for any benefit. He further submitted that, in fact, the appointment was made without following the procedure which appointment is illegal and void ab initio. 7. In the peculiar facts of the present case, we do not find it necessary to decide the issues raised by the counsel for the parties. The appellant having continued to receive salary till the age of superannuation, i.e. 30.06.2013 and no other appointment having been made on the post held by the appellant, we are of the view that the ends of justice be served in directing that salary received by the appellant during the period, he worked on the post, should not be recovered by the State. However, we are of the view that the appellant is not entitled for any retirement benefits in peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.