JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.
2. The petitioner, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for the following reliefs :
(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner duly selected and substantially appointed Class-IV employee of the institution and to pay salary to the petitioner regularly from the date of her initial appointment;
(ii) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case ;
(iii) to award costs of this petition to the petitioner.
3. The case set up by the petitioner as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed on 26th July, 1994, as Class-IV employee in the institution concerned. The petitioner has appended the letter of appointment issued by the Principal of the Institution concerned which clearly says that the papers regarding approval of appointment of the petitioner are being forwarded for approval to the Dy. Director of Education, Region-1, Meerut and the petitioner shall be entitled for the payment of salary only after the approval by the aforesaid Dy. Director of Education, Region-I, Meerut. The petitioner has also annexed a letter, Annexure-8 to the writ petition, which is an order dated 31st May, 1996, whereby the financial approval to the petitioner's appointment has been granted. The order clearly says that the petitioner is being appointed from the date of despatch of the letter on one year's probation. The petitioner's case that she has been continuously working with effect from 26th July, 1994, whereas she has been paid the salary only after the order dated 27th August, 1996.
4. This Court directed the respondents to pay to the petitioner current monthly salary regularly to which she is entitled or to show cause by filing counter-affidavit.
5. The respondents have filed counter-affidavit. In paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit, they have categorically stated that according to the order passed by the Dy. Director of Education, the petitioner's appointment shall be treated to be approved appointment with effect from the date of despatch of letter dated 31st May, 1996 and, therefore, the petitioner will be entitled for the payment of salary from the date of despatch of the letter of appointment. It has further been stated at Bar that from 1st June, 1996, the petitioner is being paid salary regularly, which has not been denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled for the salary prior to 31st May, 1995, which is a date of passing of the order of approval by the Dy. Director of Education. There is no grievance that the salary of the petitioner is not being paid.
7. In this view of the matter, the petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. There is no order as to costs.