JUDGMENT : (Arun Kumar Jha, J.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present L.P.A. is directed against the order dated 27.09.2010 passed in CWJC No. 11078 of 2007 by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the civil writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 3. In the writ petition, the appellant-petitioner has sought following relief : “i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing of the notification dated 02.02.2006 issued by the B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University (hereinafter referred to as ‘University’ only) whereby the pay scale of the petitioner has been reduced from the existing pay scale of Rs. 2200-Rs.4000/-(corresponding revised pay scale of Rs. 8000/-to 13500/-) to the revised pay scale of Rs. 6500/-to 10500/-in an erroneous manner. ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ for commanding the respondent to grant pay scale of grade II to the petitioner after completion of 5 years of service i.e. with effect from 03.04.1980, pay scale of grade I after completing 10 years of service i.e. with effect from 03.04.1985 and selection grade after completion of 12 years of service i.e. with effect from 03.04.1987 as per norms prescribed by the Inter University Sports Board of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘Board’ only) vide letter dated 15.07.1975 (Annexure2). iii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ for commanding the respondents to make the payments of the arrears to the petitioner with admissible interest as per the aforesaid revised scale admissible to him. iv) For holding that the act of the respondent in not granting the corresponding pay scale to the petitioner as prescribed by the Inter University Sports Board of India mentioned in letter dated 15th July 1975 issued by it to the Sports Officers, Member Universities/ Institute as announced by the Ministry of Education and Social Welfare is highly arbitrary, unreasonable, against the settled principles of law as well as violative of the instruction, resolution and circulars issued by the competent authority from time to time. v) For issuance of any other appropriate writ order or direction which your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. v) For issuance of any other appropriate writ order or direction which your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-petitioner was appointed as Football Coach on 03.04.1975 vide University notification no. B/5233-38 issued under the signature of the Registrar on temporary basis in the pay scale of Rs.250-15-400/-. The appointment of the appellant was extended from time to time by the Vice Chancellor/ Registrar of the University by different orders and finally the Vice Chancellor of the University allowed the pay scale of Rs.500/-to 900/-admissible to grade III Football Coach along with other admissible allowances, w.e.f., 01.05.1978 vide office order dated 16.06.1978. The Inter University Sports Board of India (in short, ‘Board’) vide its letter dated 15.07.1975, addressed to the Sports Officer, Member, Universities/Institutes prescribed the revised pay scale of the NS NIS Coaches as announced by the Ministry of Education and Social Welfare. The appellant submitted a representation to the Vice Chancellor for upgradation of his scale of pay from Rs. 500/-to 900/-to the scale of pay Rs. 700-1100/-in view of the letter dated 15.07.1975 issued by the Board. The Vice Chancellor in consultation with the Secretary, University Sports Council, directed that the post of the appellant may be upgraded from IIIrd grade to IInd grade and he be allowed the scale of Rs.700-1100/-and the payment of his salary in the upgraded scale of pay might be made only after the approval of the State Government. Accordingly, the University vide its letter no. 5618 dated 08.11.1984 requested the Joint Secretary, Education Department. Govt. of Bihar, Patna for grant of approval of the State Government for the up-gradation of the scale of pay of the appellant from Rs 500-900/-to 700-1100/-w.e.f. 29.02.1984. Thereafter, a meeting of the promotion committee of the University was held on 19.02.1991 to consider the cases of promotion of IIIrd and IVth grade employees of the University including the appellant under time bound promotion scheme. The committee recommended the appellant for first time bound promotion with effect from the date of his initial appointment. Consequently, the office order dated 23.02.1991 was issued under the signature of the Registrar of the University whereby the appellant was allowed the first time bound promotion in the pay scale of Rs.700-1100/-, w.e.f., 3rd April, 1985. Another office order contained in memo no. Consequently, the office order dated 23.02.1991 was issued under the signature of the Registrar of the University whereby the appellant was allowed the first time bound promotion in the pay scale of Rs.700-1100/-, w.e.f., 3rd April, 1985. Another office order contained in memo no. B/899 dated 18.03.1991 was issued by the University under the signature of the Registrar whereby the Vice Chancellor of the University, on recommendation of the pay fixation committee, held on 13.03.1991, approved the pay fixation of the appellant on Rs.780/-in the pay scale of Rs.700-1100/-with effect from 3rd April, 1985. Thereafter, the University issued an office order contained in Memo No. B/2164 dated 08.12.1992 under the signature of Registrar whereby the Vice Chancellor on recommendation of the Pay Fixation Committee held on 14th November,1992 approved the pay fixation of the appellant at Rs. 2500/-on 01.01.1986 in the revised pay scale of Rs.2200-4000/-. The appellant stagnated in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000/-(the corresponding revised pay scale of which is Rs. 8000-13500/-). However, surprisingly instead of granting the grade I and selection grade pay scale to the appellant, the pay scale of the appellant has been fixed in the degraded pay scale of Rs.6500-10500, i.e., even lower than the existing replacement admissible pay scale of Rs.8000-13500/-(earlier pay scale of which is Rs.2200-4000/-) vide notification dated 02.02.2006, which has been challenged in CWJC No.11078 of 2007. The learned Single Judge having considered the matter in its entirety, dismissed the aforesaid writ petition with some observation and direction vide order dated 27.09.2010, which is under challenge in the present LPA. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is entitled for the pay scale as prescribed by the Board and as such the pay scale of grade II, grade I and selection grade ought to have given to him with effect from April 1980, April, 1985 and April. 1987 respectively on completion of five years, 10 years and 12 years of service. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent authorities have adopted a method of pick and choose in granting admissible pay scale to the appellant. The appellant being a Football Coach was a teaching employee of the University and could not be equated with non-teaching employee in an arbitrary manner. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent authorities have adopted a method of pick and choose in granting admissible pay scale to the appellant. The appellant being a Football Coach was a teaching employee of the University and could not be equated with non-teaching employee in an arbitrary manner. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant has been subjected to hostile discrimination by the arbitrary and indifferent attitude of respondent authorities as the Coaches in different Universities are getting higher pay scale than the appellant though they are junior to the appellant e.g. Sri B. Kandoluna, Hockey Coach, Ranchi University was getting a pay scale of Rs.3000-4500/-i.e. grade I scale in the year 1991 even before bifurcation of State as is apparent from the perusal of the letter dated 23.08.1991 issued by the Director, Physical Education addressed to the Registrar, the then Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. However the appellant was getting grade III scale in the year 1991. The learned counsel further submitted that vide office order contained in memo no. 118 dated 12.01.2009 issued under the signature of Registrar of the University, the Vice-Chancellor has been pleased to approve the pay fixation of 14 PTI in the UGC Pay scale of Rs 8000/-13500/-from 01.01.1996 as contained in Govt. letter No. 2/D-1-03-2006-2088 Patna dated 23.11.07 and certified by the University vide letter no. B/293 dated 09.02.08. The petitioner is also entitled for the aforesaid scale in view of his qualification. The learned counsel further submitted that a new football coach has been appointed in the University three years earlier in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/ and he has been given the scale of Rs.8000-to 13500/-within a period of three years itself though an up-gradation is allowed after a period of 5 years, but the petitioner has been subjected to hostile discrimination. Further, one Vijay Pratap Singh, Football Coach in BRA Bihar University has been extended pay scale of Rs.8,000-13,000/-in the year 2011. But the same was not granted to the appellant-petitioner. This shows clear bias against the appellant-petitioner. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that no interference in the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge is called for as the same has been passed after duly considering all the materials on record. But the same was not granted to the appellant-petitioner. This shows clear bias against the appellant-petitioner. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that no interference in the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge is called for as the same has been passed after duly considering all the materials on record. The learned counsel for the State-respondents submitted that during course of examination of records with regard to service of the appellant on the post of Football Coach by the Education Department, it has been found that the appellant was appointed on 03.04.1975 on the post of Football Coach, though no post of Football Coach was sanctioned in the University meaning thereby that the appellant was appointed against a non-sanctioned post and no pay scale was prescribed for the said post and the appellant was granted pay scale equivalent to the post of PTI by the University, which was not permissible in the eyes of law. The University never obtained approval of appointment of the appellant from the State Government under Section 35 (2) of the Bihar State Universities Act. In view of the aforesaid facts, the Education Department came to a conclusion that the appellant was appointed against a non-sanctioned post in violation of Section 35(2) of the Bihar State Universities Act and the appointment of the petitioner was illegal. Thus, no interference in the matter is required by this Court. 7. Having considered the material available on record and further considering the rival submissions, core question, which arises for consideration, is whether the appellant is entitled to pay scale of Rs.8000/-to 13,500/-at par with Sri Vijay Pratap Singh, who has been extended the said pay scale? 8. On 22.02.2023, this Court has passed the following orders : “Pursuant to the previous order dated 15.02.2023, Prof. Rekha Kumari, Director, Higher Education, Bihar is present in the Court. Despite presence of Director, Higher Education, Bihar there is no assistance to the extent that why one Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, football coach in B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, has been extended pay scale of Rs.8000/-to 13500/-in the year 2011, whereas, appellant who attained age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.08.2007, has been extended pay scale of Rs. 6500/-to 10500/-. His claim is that he is also entitled to pay scale of Rs. 6500/-to 10500/-. His claim is that he is also entitled to pay scale of Rs. 8000/-to 13500/-on par with Shri. Vijay Pratap Singh, on this point the counter-affidavit and the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents are silent. Even though crucial issue is whether appellant is entitled to pay scale of Rs. 8000/-to 13500/-? In this regard petitioner is relying on office order of B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur issued in favour of Shri. Vijay Pratap Singh who has been extended pay scale of Rs. 8000/-to 13500/-and it has not been answered in the counter affidavit/supplementary affidavit. Having regard to the fact that appellant has attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.08.2007 and he is before this Court since the year 2007 and L.P.A. is of the year 2011, further two weeks’ time is granted subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/-, cost shall be paid by the State Government/University and it shall be remitted in High court Legal Services Authority. State Government is permitted to file further supplementary affidavit in order to overcome the contention regarding the pay scale extended to Shri. Vijay Pratap Singh at Rs. 8000/-to 13500/-and why similar pay scale cannot be extended to appellant? Re-list this matter on 13.03.2023”. 9. In terms of the aforesaid order, a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 & 3. It would be relevant to quote paragraph nos. 5 to 12 of the said affidavit : “5. That it is humbly stated that in pursuance of the aforesaid direction, the Department convened a meeting with the official of the respondent university and requested them to furnish the service record and other relevant material related with both the appellant as well as Shri Vijay Pratap Singh. 6. That it is humbly stated that the respondent university failed to supply the relevant documents showing sanction of the post of Football Coach against which both the appellant as well as Shri Vijay Pratap Singh had been appointed, which means that both the appellant and Shri Vijay Pratap Singh had been appointed against unsanctioned post, which render their appointment illegal. 7. 7. That it is humbly stated that after examining all the relevant documents related with the appellant as well as Shir Vijay Pratap Singh, the department passed a reasoned order dated 07.03.2023, which is being brought on record for the better appreciation of this fact. 8. That it is humbly stated that as per the aforesaid reasoned order the department has allowed the pension of the appellant in the last pay drawn in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500/-as he has already retired in the year 2007 itself. 9. That it is humbly stated that it has further been decided that since the appointment of Shri Vijay Pratap Singh has been done on unsanctioned post, rendering his appointment void ab initio hence his service has been ordered to be terminated after one month from the issuance of the aforesaid reasoned order and after following the Principle of Rule of Natural Justice. 10. That it is humbly stated that it has even further decided that Shri Vijay Pratap Singh will also get the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500/-for the period he has worked. 11. That it is important to mention here that since the post of Football coach has never been created/sanctioned by the State Government hence no pay scale has been assigned to that post. 12. That it is humbly stated that the department has further directed the university to identify those officials who were responsible for the appointment of appellant and Shri Vijay Pratap Singh within 30 days and take steps for recovery of the amount paid to the appellant and Shir Vijay Pratap Singh from them under the provisions contained in the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914.” 10. From the averments of the supplementary counter affidavit, it appears that after examining all the relevant documents related with the appellant as well as Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, the Department passed a reasoned order dated 07.03.2023, which is reproduced below : Despite presence of Director, Higher Education, Bihar there is no assistance to the extent that why one Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, football coach in B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, has been extended pay scale of Rs. 8000/-to 13500/-in the year 2011, whereas, appellant who attained age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.08.2007, has been extended pay scale of Rs. 6500/-to 10500/-His claim is that he is also entitled to pay scale of Rs. 8000/-to 13500/-in the year 2011, whereas, appellant who attained age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.08.2007, has been extended pay scale of Rs. 6500/-to 10500/-His claim is that he is also entitled to pay scale of Rs. 8000/-to 13500/-on par with Shri. Vijay Pratap Singh, on this point the counter-affidavit and the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents are silent. Even though crucial issue is whether appellant is entitled to pay scale of Rs. 8000/-to 13500/-? In this regard petitioner is relying on office order of B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur issued in favour of Shri. Vijay Pratap Singh who has been extended pay scale of Rs. 8000/-to 13500/-and it has not been answered in the counter affidavit / supplementary affidavit. Having regard to the fact that appellant has attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.08.2007 and he is before this Court since the year 2007 and L.P.A. is of the year 2011, further two weeks' time is granted subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/-, cost shall be paid by the State Government/University and it shall be remitted in High court Legal Services Authority. State Government is permitted to file further supplementary affidavit in order to overcome the contention regarding the pay scale extended to Shri. Vijay Pratap Singh at Rs. 8000/-to 13500/-and why similar pay scale cannot be extended to appellant? 11. So far as career progression of the petitioner- appellant is concerned, the learned Single Judge has elaborately discussed all the issues and what was admissible to the petitioner during his service period. So, we are not inclined to enter into these matters. However, from the facts as brought on record it is clear that the petitioner-appellant was appointed as Football Coach against non-sanctioned post. The Department has allowed the pension of the appellant in the last pay drawn in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500/-as he has already retired in the year 2007 itself. It has also come on record that the department concerned has taken a decision to revert Shri Vijay Pratap Singh to the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- for the period he has worked and to take steps for his termination. 6500-10500/-as he has already retired in the year 2007 itself. It has also come on record that the department concerned has taken a decision to revert Shri Vijay Pratap Singh to the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- for the period he has worked and to take steps for his termination. Since the post of Football Coach has never been created/sanctioned by the State Government, hence no pay scale has been assigned to that post and the State Government has further directed the university to identify those officials who were responsible for the appointment of appellant and Shri Vijay Pratap Singh within 30 days and take steps for recovery of the amount paid to the appellant and Shri Vijay Pratap Singh from them under the provisions contained in the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914. 12. In the light of discussion made hereinabove and under the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge has committed any error which calls for interference by this Court in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction. We are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 13. Accordingly, the present Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the appellant would not be subjected to any recovery which is not permissible under the law. Moreover he has discharged the duties of the post and at this distance of time, it is not appropriate to initiate any recovery proceedings. At this stage, it is necessary to take note of recent judgment of the Apex Court viz., Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536, which covers the aforesaid aspect of the matter.