IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12828 of 2006 1. Bijay Kumar Singh, Son of late Rajendra Singh, Resident of Village & P.O. Chaita, P.S. Papri Dayal, District East Champaran. 2. Shiv Narayan Singh, Son of late Kartik Prasad Singh, Resident of Village Chandradih, P.S. Dhoria, District Banka. 3. Nagendra Kishore Singh, Son of Nageshwar Singh, Resident of Village Dumri Baiju, P.S. Patahi, District East Champaran. 4. Yogendra Baitha, Son of Shri Jhinni Baitha, Resident of Village Chaita, P.S. Papri Dayal, District East Champaran. 5. Moharram Mistry, Son of Shri Amin Mistry, Resident of Village Sishua, P.S. Banjaria, District East Champaran. 6. Ramashish Ram, Son of late Adalat Ram, Resident of Village Dhakka, P.S. Motihari Muffasil, District East Champaran. 7. Mahendra Singh, Son of late Narsingh Singh, Resident of Village Janwara, P.S. Govindganj, District East Champaran. ------- Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Higher Education Department, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 2. Joint Secretary, Higher Education Department, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University through its Vice Chancellor, Muzaffarpur. 4. Registrar, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. 5. Finance Officer, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University, having his office in the University Campus, Muzaffarpur. 6. The Principal, S N C Colege, Motihari. -------- Respondents ----------- 2 02.08.2010 I.A. No. 3851 of 2007 For the reasons mentioned in this application, Shatrughan Singh is also impleaded as petitioner no.8 provided he would pay one set of court fee within a period of one week from today, failing which he will not be impleaded as petitioner no.8 to this writ application. 2 Subject to the payment of aforementioned amount, Satrughan Singh would be impleaded as petitioner no.8 to this writ application. C.W.J.C. No. 12828 of 2006 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University. The prayer of the petitioners in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That by this writ application the petitioners pray for a direction upon the respondents to grant the benefit of notional fixation in their scale with effect from 14.1.1980, i.e. that date the S.N.S. College, Motihari, has been taken over as a constituent college and the services of the petitioners have been regularized. (b) The petitioners also pray for direction upon the respondents for appropriate modification of the fixation communicated vide Memo No. B/96 dated 16.1.2006 by which the fixation has been calculated and granted by the notification issued on 14.1.2006 by the University. The petitioners also pray for granting the appropriate consequential relief(s) including the arrears of salary to which the petitioners are entitled.” 3 Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the college in which the petitioners were initially appointed under the private management was made constituent unit of Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the University’) in the year 1980-81 and ultimately after ten years of long enquiry etc., the services of the petitioners were absorbed by the University in terms of Section 4(14) of the Bihar State University Act (hereafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’) and regular payment of salary was also started to them in the prescribed pay-scale from 1.4.1990 in terms of the decision of the State Government. He would further submit that admittedly in the same matter, the University had clearly communicated that such regularization of the petitioners was to date back to the date of the college became constituent (date of conversion) and as such, the petitioners would be entitled if not for full salary for the interregnum period, at least for their pay-fixation from the date of 14.1.1980 when the college became constituent 4 to 31.3.1990 when their services were regularised. Counsel would also submit that the petitioners have also filed a representation for this purpose to the Vice Chancellor of the University but no decision thereon has been taken till date. Mr. A.B. Sinha, learned counsel for the University, on the other hand would submit that the decision of the University dated 14.8.1991 (Annexure-5) is not very specific with regard to giving benefit of the past services and, therefore, a conscious decision is required to be taken by the University in consultation of the State Government. In this context, he has referred to the University notification dated 14.1.2006 fixing the salary of the petitioners on the basis of his services being regularized with effect from 1.4.1990. Strictly speaking, when the college had become a constituent unit and a decision for absorption of the petitioners and others was kept pending for screening and ultimately passing an order in terms of Section 4(14) of the Act the petitioners would be entitled to 5 their past service whenever such order could be passed provided that the post on which such absorption/regularization was sought to be made by the University was in existence, sanctioned and vacant and thus available on the date when a college became constituent. Therefore the concerned petitioner would be entitled at least for regularization from such date with the benefit of pay fixation. Any other interpretation will actually defeat the right of the persons including the petitioners continuing in the college on the date of take-over of the college because for them neither the private governing body will be answerable to the terms and condition of their service after the college became constituent nor the University could disown it by taking a plea that some sort of enquiry under was going on. Therefore, once the University had passed the order dated 17.11.1990 regularizing the services of the petitioners w.e.f. 1.4.1990 though it may have the financial constrains have decided to pay full salary in the prescribed pay scale with benefit from 1.4.1990, it was also under 6 obligation to look into the aspect as with regard to the pay-fixation benefit of the petitioners from the date the college became constituent, of-course, only if the posts for petitioners was already sanctioned or any one of them. That being so, this Court would direct the University to re-examine the claim of the petitioners confining only for the purposes of pay-fixation from the date the college became constituent and take a conscious decision within a period of six months from the date of filing of individual separate representation by the petitioners, inasmuch as, each of the petitioners will have separate service history as also the availability of sanctioned post. In the event, such representations are filed by the petitioners along with documents supporting their claim with a copy of this order as well, the same will be disposed of by the competent authority of the University within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the event such representations are 7 disposed of in their favour, they would also be entitled for consequential benefit, of course, only after 1.4.1990 onwards. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)