JUDGMENT : KRISHNA RAO, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging the impugned order No. 558 dated 18th June, 2022 wherein the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District had rejected the request for release of salary of the petitioner, Ex-Legal Assistant on contract basis for a period from 10th November, 2017 to 16th April, 2018. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed vide Order No. 116 dated 4th February, 2015 as Legal Assistant on contract basis for a period of six months till the post is filled upon on regular basis by the Union of India whichever is earlier in the District Administration on a consolidated salary of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) per month with effect from the date of her reporting for duty. 3. In terms of the said order, the petitioner has reported her duty on 10th February, 2015. The service of the petitioner was extended from time to time and lastly, the service of the petitioner was extended by an order No. 1615 dated 20th December, 2017 with effect from 10th August, 2017 for a period of three months. 4. By an order No. 06 dated 1st January, 2018, the Lieutenant Governor (Administrator), Andaman and Nicobar Islands, was pleased to enhance the consolidated salary of the petitioner as Legal Assistant on contract basis from Rs.25,000/-to Rs.40,000/-per month with effect from 17th September, 2017. 5. The contract period of the petitioner was expired on 10th November, 2017. Thereafter, no extension was given, but the petitioner was allowed to continue as Legal Assistant on contract basis attached to the Legal Cell of the office of the Deputy Commissioner with effect from 1st November, 2017 to 16th April, 2018. 6. As the petitioner has performed her duty as Legal Assistant but no salary was released and accordingly, the petitioner has made a representation to the authorities on 16th April, 2018 for release of salary for the period from 1st November, 2017 to 16th April, 2018. 6. As the petitioner has performed her duty as Legal Assistant but no salary was released and accordingly, the petitioner has made a representation to the authorities on 16th April, 2018 for release of salary for the period from 1st November, 2017 to 16th April, 2018. As the representation submitted by the petitioner was not considered by the respondent authorities, accordingly, the petitioner had filed a writ application before this Court, being WP/030/2020 and the said writ writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 26th February, 2020 wherein this Court had directed the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District to consider the representation dated giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of communication of the said order. 7. In compliance of the order dated 26th February, 2020, the Deputy Commissioner had passed the impugned order by rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the competent authority has accorded approval for extension of her contract only for three months with effect from 10th August, 2017 to 9th November, 2017 and thereafter no approval was given to the petitioner for her engagement on contract basis and as such without the approval, the petitioner is not entitled to get the salary. 8. Mr. KMB Jayapal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the year 2015, the petitioner had performed her duty as Legal Assistant on contract basis in the office of the Deputy Commissioner and on completion of her contract period, the office of the Deputy Commissioner has informed the petitioner to continue with her service and in the meantime, an appropriate approval will be obtained from the competent authority. 9. Mr. Jayapal, by referring extension orders wherein time to time the contract period of the petitioner was extended, shows the authorties have given the extension from retrospective effect and taking into consideration that in every occasions, the respondent authorities have accorded approval in back date and as such the petitioner had continued with her service even completion of contract period, but the authorities have not accorded approval. The fact remains that the petitioner had performed as Legal Assistant in the office of the Deputy Commissioner. 10. Mr. The fact remains that the petitioner had performed as Legal Assistant in the office of the Deputy Commissioner. 10. Mr. Jayapal submits that now the authorities have taken plea that no approval was accorded but the fact remains that the authorities have extracted services of the petitioner as Legal Assistant and thus the petitioner is entitled to get her salary for the work done by the petitioner. 11. Mr. Jayapal submits that the Deputy Commissioner has rejected the claim of the petitioner only on the ground that the competent authority has not accorded approval for the extension of contract period of the petitioner, but the Deputy Commissioner has not denied with regard to the work performed by the petitioner during the said period. Mr. Jayapal submits that the petitioner has performed her duty as such the petitioner is entitled to get her salary. 12. Per contra Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the petitioner had the knowledge that there is no extension accorded by the competent authority and in spite of having knowledge, the petitioner was continued with the said work of her own and thus, the petitioner cannot claim for approval and release of salary. 13. Mr.Chakraborty has relied upon the judgment reported in Loop Telecom and Trading Limited vs. Union of India and Others, (2022) 6 SCC 672 and submits as per section 65 of the Contract Act, the obligation of a person and has received advantage under void agreement or contract that becomes void. On referring the same, Mr. Chakraborty submits that, in the present case also, the petitioner had the knowledge that the contract period of the petitioner has expired and no extension was given but in spite of such knowledge, the petitioner had continued with her work with the respondent authorities. 14. Mr. Chakraborty submits that unless and until the competent authority approves the extension of the contract service of the petitioner, it is not possible for the Deputy Commissioner for release of salary in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Chakraborty submits that the petitioner is claiming service benefits that is the salary and as such this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ application and the petitioner is required to approach the learned Central Administrative Tribunal for her relief. 15. Mr. Mr. Chakraborty submits that the petitioner is claiming service benefits that is the salary and as such this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ application and the petitioner is required to approach the learned Central Administrative Tribunal for her relief. 15. Mr. Chakraborty relied on the unreported judgment dated 14th December, 2022 passed by this Court in WPA No. 216/2022, Dr. Avijith Roy vs. The Union of India and Others wherein this Court held that the claim of the petitioner is a service benefit and thus, the petitioner is required to approach before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. 16. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the materials on record. 17. Admittedly the petitioner was appointed as Legal Assistant on contract basis in the year 2015 and the contract period was extended from time to time. The initial order of appointment was issued on 4th February, 2015 wherein the contract period was fixed for six months i.e. upto 3rd August, 2015. But by an order No. 1025 dated 28th September, 2015, the respondents have extended her appointment of the petitioner for a further period of six months with effect from 10th August, 2015 to 9th February, 2016. Again on 19th February, 2016, the respondent authorities have extended the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 10th February, 2016 to 9th August, 2016. By an order No. 1089 dated 19th September, 2016, again the service of the petitioner was extended for a further period of six months with effect from 10th August, 2016 to 9th January, 2017. By an order No. 214 dated 10th March, 2017, again the service of the petitioner was extended with effect from 10th February,2017 for another period of six months. By an order dated 20th December, 2017, the service of the petitioner was further extended with effect from 10th August,2017 for three months. 18. From the aforesaid orders, it is crystal clear that the respondent authorities, on each and every occasions, have extended the contract period of the petitioner from the retrospective date which shows that the petitioner was allowed to continue the contract work even after completion of the contract period and were granted extension after the period is over. On believing the said situation, the petitioner had continued with her service even the period from 1st November, 2017 to 16th April, 2018. On believing the said situation, the petitioner had continued with her service even the period from 1st November, 2017 to 16th April, 2018. None of the authorities have restrained the petitioner from performing her duty on the ground that the contract period of the petitioner was not extended, only when the petitioner has requested the authorities to release her payment, now the respondents have taken plea that the competent authorities have not accorded approval for extension of the contract period of the petitioner. 19. In all the orders, it is mentioned that the service period of the petitioner is extended for a specific period or till the incumbent is appointed through the Union Public Service Commission, whichever is earlier. But, in the present case, till date, none of the incumbent was appointed on regular basis through the UPSC. It is also not the case of the respondent authorities that some other persons were appointed and as such no approval was granted to the petitioner. 20. The submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is that having the knowledge that the contract period of the petitioner is over, but the petitioner, in spite of knowing the fact, continued with the said work but the said submission of the respondents cannot be accepted as from all the orders, it is crystal clear that the respondent authorities have given approval for extension of service of the petitioner in all occasions with respective effect i.e. after the period of extension was over. 21. As regards the jurisdiction of this Court is concerned, in earlier occasion, the petitioner has filed the writ application and this Court has entertained and no plea with regard to maintainability was raised and in terms of the order passed by this Court, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the order impugned . Now, the petitioner has challenged the said impugned order and thus, this Court is of the view, at this stage, the respondents cannot take the plea that the petitioner has to approach before the learned Tribunal. 22. This Court is of the view that the authorities have extracted work from the petitioner as Legal Assistant from 17.09.2017 to 16.04.2018, thus the respondents are liable to pay her salary. Accordingly the order impugned passed by the Deputy Commissioner is set aside and quashed. 23. 22. This Court is of the view that the authorities have extracted work from the petitioner as Legal Assistant from 17.09.2017 to 16.04.2018, thus the respondents are liable to pay her salary. Accordingly the order impugned passed by the Deputy Commissioner is set aside and quashed. 23. The respondents are liable to pay salary to the petitioner for the said period and the authorities cannot avoid for payment of salary on the ground of non-approval by the competent authority. 24. The respondent authorities, particularly the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District is directed to take appropriate steps for getting approval from the competent authority for extension of the contract period of the petitioner with effect from 17th September, 2017 to 16th April, 2018 and to release the salary of petitioner at the rate of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand only) per month from 17th September, 2017 to 16th April, 2018 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 25. With above observation and direction the WPA/227/2022 is disposed of. There shall however be no order as to costs. 26. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.