JUDGMENT
Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade in B.R.K. Inter College, Walidpur, district Mau. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.1.1995 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Mau, whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of arrears of difference in salary with effect from 8.1.1991 to 31.8.1994, has been denied. The petitioner has claimed for payment of his salary with all consequential benefits as Assistant Teacher with effect from 8.1.1991 to 31.8.1994 after deducting amount of salary of the petitioner already paid to him for the post of peon.
3. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on ad hoc basis by the Committee of Management of the college on 8.1.1991 and he joined his duties on 8.1.1991. Since then he is continuously working as Assistant Teacher in the college in question but in absence of a formal order of
approval, he was not paid his salary in the L.T. grade but was being paid salary applicable to Class IV employees inasmuch as prior to his appointment as Assistant Teacher, the petitioner was working as a Class IV employee in the said institution. This inaction and arbitrariness of the authorities was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 16711 of 1991. During the pendency of writ petition, the following interim orders were passed :
“The petitioner claims to have been appointed as a lecturer prior to 11.1.1991. It has further been alleged that the Committee of Management has sent the requisite papers to the D.I.O.S. for approval. In case the papers in this regard have been received by the D.I.O.S., he will consider the case for grant of approval. It is made clear that if there is any legal impediment, the D.I.O.S. will pass detailed order giving reasons in this regard within a period of two months of the service of a certified copy of this order. A copy of the order may be issued on payment of usual charges within 48 hours.”
4. The writ petition was disposed of by judgment and order dated 17.8.1994 with direction that in case approval is granted to the appointment of the petitioner, he will be entitled to salary.
5. It is submitted that in compliance of the order passed by this Court the District Inspector of Schools, Mau, passed an order dated 20.10.1993 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) by which he has accepted the claim of the petitioner and granted approval to his appointment. He, however, arbitrarily fixed 1.9.1994 as cut off date for payment of salary to the petitioner in L.T. grade without basis. It is well-settled principle of law that a subsequent order of approval granted by the competent authority will relate back to the date of appointment and subsequent order of approval will also entitle teacher concerned to get his salary and other consequential service benefits with effect from his initial date of appointment.
6. In this view of the matter, the petitioner claims that he is entitled to receive salary in teachers’ grade with effect from 8.1.1991, the date on which the petitioner joined his duties.
7. The petitioner has filed his appointment letter as Annexure-1 and Joining report as Annexure-2 to the writ petition in support of his claim from these it is established that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 5.1.1991 and joined his duties on 8.1.1991. It is stated that the Principal of the College, namely. Awadhesh Singh had mala fide intention against the petitioner. He has made false statement before the authorities as well as before this Court and has misused his position and stated that the petitioner is not working as teacher, though all records like the Attendance Register, etc. were in his possession. It is submitted that this fact has been admitted by the Committee of Management in its counter-affidavit. In para 15 of the counter-affidavit, it has been admitted that the petitioner is discharging his duties as Assistant Teacher, L.T. grade with effect from 8.1.1991. In paras 2, 3 and 4 of the counter-affidavit filed by the Principal of the college, it is also admitted that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 5.1.1991 and joined his duties on 8.1.1991 and since then he is continuously working as such.
8. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid admitted facts by the college authorities, the affidavit filed by Awadhesh Singh is not liable to be relied upon which contains incorrect facts.
9. The grievance of the petitioner is that due to non-payment of his salary as Assistant Teacher with effect from 8.1.1991, he is illegally deprived of the following benefits :
(a) Difference of salary from the post of Peon to the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. grade with effect from 8.1.1991 to 31,8.1994.
(b) The petitioner is treated as Assistant Teacher with effect from 1.9.1994 whereas he was appointed on 5.1.1991. If he is
not treated as Assistant Teacher with effect from 5.1.1991, he will be deprived of the benefits of Section 33A of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act. 1982 (U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982) and he will get substantive appointment.
(c) The petitioner is deprived of the benefit of selection grade and revision of pay scale in teachers’ grade as well as annual increments of pay w.e.f. 1999.
10. It is apparent from the counter-affidavit of the Principal that the Committee of Management had appointed the petitioner vide letter of appointment dated 5.1.1991 and the petitioner is continuously working as Assistant Teacher with effect from 8.1.1991.
11. The claim of the petitioner is established from the record. The petition therefore, succeeds and is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.1.1995 passed by the D.I.O.S. is quashed. The respondents are commanded by a writ of mandamus to treat the petitioner as Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 8.1.1991 and pay the salary of the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. grade w.e.f. 8.1.1991 to 31.8.1994 to him with annual increments and other emoluments and benefits under Section 33A of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 to which he would have been entitled to after making adjustment of amount already paid. The difference of salary aforesaid shall be paid within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
12. No order as to costs.