State cannot deny salary for continuous service on the ground of non-sanctioned posts despite perennial workload.

Petitioner No. 2 was appointed as a Class III Clerk on 08.11.2004 at Kamla Nehru Institute of Physical and Social Sciences, Sultanpur, following a public advertisement and selection committee process

The institution is affiliated with Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University and governed by the Statute of 1978

Despite the management submitting proposals for post-sanction since 1998 and reminders in 2002 and 2004, the State took no decision

The Petitioner discharged continuous duties since 2004 but was denied salary from the State Exchequer on the grounds that the post was not sanctioned and formal approval was absent

1. Whether the State can deny salary to an employee who has rendered continuous service for decades solely on the ground of non-sanction of the post, despite a pending proposal for such sanction.

2. Whether an appointment made through a transparent selection process can be deemed approved under Statute 18.03(4) if the competent authority fails to pass an order within the prescribed time.

The court primarily applied the principle of "Deemed Approval" under Statute 18.03(4) of the relevant University Statutes

It relied on the constitutional mandate of Articles 14 and 21, asserting that non-payment for work rendered is exploitative

Precedent regarding legitimate expectation from Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand [(2026) SCC Online SC 129]

Precedents distinguishing between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments and prohibiting using Uma Devi as a shield for exploitation from Jaggo v. Union of India [2024 SCC Online SC 3826] and Vinod Kumar v. Union of India [(2024) 9 SCC 327]

Precedent holding that the State cannot indefinitely refuse to sanction posts for perennial work from Virendra Kumar Chaubey v. State of U.P. [(2025) 4 UPLBEC 2893]

The court reasoned that since Petitioner No. 2 was recruited via public advertisement and a selection committee, the appointment was "irregular" (procedural) rather than "illegal" (back-door entry), thus meriting protection

The court found the State’s 26-year inaction on the 1998 post-sanction proposal to be arbitrary and a violation of the State's duty as a "model employer"

Applying Statute 18.03(4), the court held that since the appointment papers were submitted and not rejected within the prescribed timeframe, approval is "deemed" to have been granted

The court bridged the facts and law by stating that the perennial nature of clerical work necessitated the post, and the State cannot balance its budget by withholding wages for actual work extracted

The court issued a Mandamus directing the respondents to: (i) ensure regular salary payment to Petitioner No. 2 from the State Exchequer; (ii) release arrears of salary from 08.11.2004 within three months; (iii) take a reasoned decision to formally sanction the post within three months; and (iv) refrain from interfering with the Petitioner's functioning

The court clarified that the lack of a sanctioned post shall not be a ground to deny these benefits