IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.189 of 2008 DR.SUCHIT NARAYAN PRASAD, retired Professor of Hindi, son of Late Sunder Lal Sahay, resident of Mohalla Vanivitan Shastri Nagar P.O.Munger P.S.Sadar Shastri Nagar District Munger. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Chancellor through O.S.D.(J) Governor’s Secretariate, Bihar, Patna 3.Vice Chancellor. T.M.Bhagalpur University,Bhagalpur. 4.Finance Officer,T.M.Bhagalpur University,Bhagalpur. 5.Secretary,T.M.Bhagalpur University,Bhagalpur. 6.Director,Secondary Education,Bihar,Patna. 7.Principal,Jagjeevan Ram Shramik Mahavidyalaya,Jamalpur, Munger. 8.Registrar, T.M.Bhagalpur University,Bhagalpur. ----------- 5 24.6.2009. This review application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for review of the order dated 3.2.2008 passed in C.W.J.C.No.2309 of 2006 whereby C.W.J.C.No.5501 of 2005 and number of analogus cases were disposed of directing the concerned authorities of different Universities to consider the representation of the petitioner for fixation of their pension and pensionary benefits. Counsel for the petitioner submits that by this very order the case of the petitioner and others was also decided and disposed of taking it to be similar to the case of the petitioner in other writ application. In fact the case of the is on different footings and the prayer of the petitioner in the writ application related to fixation of his pension on the basis of length of his total qualifying service including government service and University service. Petitioner had also prayed for quashing the letter dated 25.3.1999 Annexure-1 whereby his claim for consideration of pension on the basis of his length of total qualifying service has been rejected. Since by a common order all writ applications were disposed of, the case of 2 petitioner was not considered and the common direction which was issued on that basis the petitioner could not get proper relief for which which writ application was filed. On perusal of the relief prayed by the petitioner in the writ application I find that C.W.J.C.No.2309 of 2006 filed by the petitioner was quite different from other writ applications which were disposed of. Accordingly it is a fit case for review. The order dated 3.2.2008 passed in C.W.J.C.No.5501 of 2005 and analogus cases is required to be reviewed so far it relates to C.W.J.C.No.2309 of 2006 only. Writ application of the petitioner i.e. C.W.J.C.No.2309 of 2006 needs reconsideration. So far relief prayed by him, it is directed that the C.W.J.C.No.2309 of 2006 be placed for hearing before an appropriate bench after obtaining the orders of Hon’ble the C.J. so that the case of the petitioner can be properly considered and relief which has been sought for by the petitioner be considered and decided in its correct perspective. This application is disposed of. Sss/- (Mridula Mishra, J)