IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1336 of 2007 KUMKUM LATA SINHA Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with MJC No.2494 of 2008 KUM KUM LATA SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 6 8.9.2010 Heard the parties in respect of defects. Since the modification application has been filed on behalf of the State, filing of Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner is dispensed with. The cause title is erroneous and shows the petitioner to be a private person. There is already an order passed on 25.8.2010 in MJC No.2972 of 2009 to correct the cause title of this modification application so as to show that it has been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar and its officials. That correction must be carried out within one week failing which this modification application shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench. On hearing the parties on merits, it appears that the writ petition was finally disposed of in favour of the writ petitioner, Kumkum Lata Sinha on 15.9.2006 on - 2 - account of main relief granted to her by the Joint Secretary –cum- Director, Human Resources Department (Higher Education) contained in Memo No.1269 dated 13.9.2006. It appears that subsequently the authorities have issued a notification dated 6.6.2008 whereby orders passed in favour of Smt. Saraswati Kumari and Smt. Minakshi Rai have been cancelled on the ground that they do not fulfill the required qualification and that the provision in the statutes for promotion of Demonstrators to the post of Lecturers was not applicable in a college under the State Government where the petitioner and those two employees were working. This modification application is based clearly upon notification dated 6.6.2008 inasmuch as it has been submitted that petitioner was granted relief by the authorities on account of precedent in the case of Saraswati Kumari and Minakshi Rai and now when orders in their favour have been cancelled, this Court should modify its order and decide the claim of the petitioner on its own merits and not on the basis of concession of the State based in order dated 15.9.2006. - 3 - Learned counsel for the writ petitioner, opposite party in the modification application, has submitted that the notification dated 6.6.2008 has been challenged by Smt. Saraswati Kumari and another through CWJC No.95491 of 2008 in which an interim order has been passed on 8.1.2010. He submits that in case that notification is quashed, the basis for modification will vanish and, therefore, before deciding whether the writ petition should be heard afresh on merit or not, it would be appropriate to await for the outcome of CWJC No.95491 of 2008. It has further been submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that she had superannuated from service on 30.9.2007 and only on account of her claim for further monetary relief as per order of the Writ Court, her pensionary benefits and pension are not being paid. Considering the submissions of both the parties, the contempt application and the modification application are adjourned to be listed on mentioning of either of the parties after disposal of CWJC No.95491 of 2008. In the meantime, the authorities must pay the - 4 - pensionary benefits of the writ petitioner and all the dues pending within a period of three months from today. Since such payments will be as per claims admitted by the State, petitioner’s further claim shall abide decision of this Court. sk (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)