IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9136 of 2006 1. PANNA LAL BHATT, SON OF LATE MANODAYAL ROY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BALBANDH, POLICE STATION- CHARPHOKRI, DISTRICT-BHOJPUR. 2. MD. SARFUDDIN, SON OF LATE ABDUL HAKIM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SHEIKHBASAIYA, POLICE STATION-PIPRARHI BAZAR, DISTRICT-SHEOHAR. …………………………………………………..PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE CHANCELLOR, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, RAJ BHAWAN, PATNA. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, PUSA, SAMASTIPUR, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. 3. THE DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATION, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, PUSA, SAMASTIPUR, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. 4. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, HAVING HIS OFFICE AT OLD SECRETARIAT, POLICE STATION-SACHIVALAYA, DISTRICT-PATNA. 5. THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, HAVING HIS OFFICE AT VIKAS BHAWAN, PATNA. 6. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, LOHIYANAGAR, PATNA. ………………………………………………….RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Vikash Mohan, Advocate. For the Respondents, : M/s. D.K. Sinha, Senior Advocate Rajendra Agricultural and Chandra Mohan, Singh, University Advocate. For the Chancellor : Mr. Shivendra Kishore, Advocate. ------------ 4. 3.3.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, for the 2 University and the Chancellor. The petitioners were non-teaching staffs of the Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur. The petitioner no.1 was working on the post of Clerk, whereas the petitioner no.2 was working on the post of Laboratory Attendant. Both of the petitioners were to superannuate on 31.7.2006. However, they have filed this writ application with a prayer that the retirement of their age should also be enhanced from 60 years to 62 years, as has been done with regard to the teaching staffs. It appears that the petitioners have filed this writ application on 31st of July, 2006, i.e., on the date of their retirement. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this Court towards the letter dated 29.4.2006 as contained in Annexures-‘4’ and ‘5’ to the writ application, whereby the retirement age of the teachers of the University has been enhanced to 62 years from 60 years. However, the same clarifies that the non-teaching employee of the University would continue to retire at the age of 60 years without any scope of further extension of service. Learned counsel submits that subsequently the aforesaid notification has been modified 3 and the retirement age of the non-teaching employee has also been enhanced to 62 years from 60 years on 18.1.2007. Thus, it is contended that being a beneficial notification, the benefit thereof should be extended to the petitioners also. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University. Learned counsel appearing for the University drew attention of this Court towards the decision dated 8.10.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. No.8892 of 2006 and another analogous matter (Annexure-‘A’ to the counter affidavit). It is submitted that the learned Single Judge of this Court has already considered this aspect of the matter and has dismissed those writ applications holding that unless and until the statute has been made specifically retrospective, the same cannot be held to have a retrospective effect. In the above view of the matter, since, admittedly, the amendment had come on 18.1.2007 and the petitioners had already retired on 31.7.2006, concurring with the decision rendered in the aforesaid C.W.J.C. No. 8892 of 2006 and another analogous matter, it is held that the amendment in the notification as aforesaid cannot be held to have a retrospective effect. 4 As a result, this writ application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. P.S. ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)