IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7500 of 1997 KEWAL JHA son of Sri Jageshwar Jha resident of village Sohrai, P S. Pandual District Madhubani, presently working as lecturer in the Department of Political Science, D. S. College, Katihar….. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE CHANCELLOR, University of Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna. 2. The Vice Chancellor, B. N. Mandal University Laloo Nagar, Madhepura, Bihar. 3. The Registrar, B. N. Mandal University, Laloo Nagar, Madhepura, Bihar. 4. The Vice Chancellor, Lalit Narain Mithila University, Darbhanga, Bihar. 5. the Registrar, L. N. Mithila University, Darbhanga, Bihar. 6. The Principal, D. S. College, Katihar 7. Pawan Kumar Jha, Lecturer in the Department of Political Science, D. S. College, Katihar. …. Respondents. ----------- 8. 15.07.2010 Heard Mr. K. K. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for B. N. Mandal University as also Mr. Nitiranjan Jha, learned counsel for respondent no. 7. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition reads as follows:- “1. That the petitioner is a citizen of India and by the present writ application seeks quashing of the order contained in Memo No. R/C 6363-64/1996 dated 15.2.96 issued by the Registrar, B. N. Mandal University Laloo Nagar, Madhepura by which the seniority, confirmed services of the petitioner on the sanctioned post in political science Department D. S. college Katihar, has been superseded by respondent no. 7 who joined the said Department on an unsanctioned post after the petitioner and who also figures 4 ranks lower to petitioner in merit list, completely setting aside the 2 rules and regulation of the University, circulars and notification issued by the Government of Bihar in order to accommodate respondent no. 7.” Mr. Thakur before starting his submission has filed supplementary affidavit wherein a notification dated 26.11.2009 has been sought to be brought on record showing the petitioner to be promoted on the post of Reader under eight years Merit Promotion Scheme. According to Mr. Thakur the subsequent event of promotion on the post of Reader of the petitioner has substantially redressed the grievance of the petitoner, but then he has a small caveat. He would submit that pursuant to the said promotion even when his salary has been fixed by the University by order dated 6.4.2010, the consequential financial benefit has not been extended to the petitioner as yet. In the opinion of this Court, if the promotion of the petitioner has been notified and pay fixation as per government norms and rules has also been made, there should not be any difficulty in making payment of salary of the petitioner as is admissible to him in law. This observation however is subject to the present financial 3 position and the availability of the fund for making such payment. Nonetheless, if others having earned similar promotion have already been given such financial benefit, the same would definitely be required to be paid to the petitioner. The submission of learned counsel for the University that fund has been requisitioned from the State Government therefore needs to be verified only for finding the admissibility of payment of the petitioner. Whatever be the state of affairs the University must decide with regard to admissibility of claim of the petitioner and if it finds him entitled for the same it must also pay the admissible amount within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The only other grievance sought to be raised by Mr. Thakur, after this order has been recorded is that there is still a pending lis relating to seniority between respondent no. 7 and the petitioner which has not been decided at the level of the University. In view of the fact that such uncertainty of seniority always causes heart burning to an incumbent in a cadre this court is of the 4 view that if there be any pending representation of the petitioner with regard to interse seniority between him and respondent no. 7, the competent authority of the University shall examine the same and take a final decision expeditiously but in no event later than six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Any such decision must be taken by a reasoned order and that too only after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent no. 7. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. kanchan/ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)