IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9304 of 2002 1. Dr.Anil Kumar, son of Late Changuri Prasad Yadav, resident of village Shrirampur, P.S. Akbar Nagar, District- Bhagalpur 2. Dr.Rajeev Kumar Sinha, son of Sri Rajendra Prasad Ram, resident of village Barahat, P.S. Ishipur, District- Bhagalpur 3. Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya, son of Late Basant kumar Bhattacharya, resident of village- Champa Nagar, P.S. Nath Nagar, District- Bhagalpur 4. Sri Sunil, son of Sri Dineshwar Prasad Roy, resident of village- Jalalpur, P.S. Shahpur Patory, District- Samastipur 5. Shri Sakhichand Pandit, son of Late Doman Pandit, resident of village- Sahibganj, P.S. Kotwali (Bhagalpur), District- Bhagalpur 6. Sri Janardan Thakur, son of Late Bhagwat Thakur, resident of village Chowki Niyamatpur, P.S. Nath Nagar, District- Bhagalpur 7. Satyendra Sah, son of Late Pulakit Sah, resident of village- Banyahi Bazar, P.S.- Bangaon, District- Saharsa. ………. Petitioners. Versus 1. The Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur through its Registrar 2. The Vice Chancellor, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur 3. The Registrar, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur 4. The Finance Officer, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur 5. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Patna …………. Respondents. ----------- 6. 17/12/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the University and learned counsel for the State. As per the case of petitioners, they were appointed sometime in 1986-87 on Class III and Class IV posts under National Adult Education - 2 - Programme introduced by the Government of India and sponsored by University Grant Commission (in short `UGC’). UGC aid to run the Programme was for a certain period. After expiry of the period, UGC discontinued financial assistance to the Programme sometime in the year 2000. As a consequence of stopping of financial aid by the UGC, the Vice Chancellor of the University stopped payment of salary of petitioners and others engaged under the said Programme. Consequently, services of petitioners and others were terminated on the direction of the State Government sometime in 2001. Petitioners and others accordingly moved this Court through C.W.J.C.No.6029 of 2001 challenging the said order of their disengagement. This Court, by interim orders, stayed the operation of the impugned orders under challenge in the said writ application. Subsequently, by Annexure-12 dated 1.9.2001 the Vice Chancellor of the University withdrew the earlier order of disengagement of the petitioners and adjusted them against regular vacant sanctioned posts of the University. Consequently, petitioners withdrew - 3 - the writ application. Thereafter, by Annexure-14 dated 3.9.2001 the University issued orders of posting of the petitioners on different posts. However, the State Government subsequently issued order vide Annexure-15 dated 31.7.2002 directing the University to cancel the adjustment of the petitioners. This order is under challenge in this writ application. When the case was taken up on 14.8.2002, this Court granted time to learned counsel for the University to file counter affidavit in the case and in the meanwhile stayed the operation of impugned Annexure-15. Consequent to the said interim order, petitioners have continued in service. Under the directions of this Court, respondent University has filed counter affidavit today on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 4. In paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit it has been stated as follows : “10. That it would not be out of place to mention here that at the time of absorption of the services of 365 Employees, roster register was prepared in the year 2006 on the basis of available working strength of Employees at that time. Name of Employees working in each office was placed against the sanctioned strength. All working Employees of this department excluding petitioner No.5 Sri S.C.Pandit, who retired on 31.12.2003 were shown against post in this register.” - 4 - Above stand of the University shows that all the petitioners, except petitioner no.5, who had superannuated by then, were treated as working within sanctioned strength and their names were included in the list of 365 incumbents at the time of absorption of all of them. Hence, obviously they stand absorbed now against vacant sanctioned posts. However, learned counsel for the University submits that approval of the services of the petitioners is required from the State Government for releasing payment of salary to them. State has also placed its stand through counter affidavit. This counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No.5 Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Higher Education and sworn by the Deputy Secretary of the Department on his behalf. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, following stand has been taken by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary : “5. That, taking into consideration of all grievances of the petitioners, it is humbly and respectfully submitted that the grievances of the petitioners are related to the appointment as the employees of the University on sanctioned and vacant post and for which the respondent University is full competent to look into the matter and take action according to law and also following the provisions of the Act.” - 5 - Thus, from the pleadings of the University in its counter affidavit filed today and the stand of the respondent Commissioner- cum-Secretary, Department of Higher Education as appearing from paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, it is clear that no party has any objection in continuance of the petitioners in the services of the University on vacant sanctioned post as their services have already been absorbed. Therefore, it is apparent that no lis remains to be decided by this Court. Accordingly, this writ application is disposed of. Respondents are directed to treat the petitioners as absorbed in the regular service of the University and continue them on the vacant sanctioned post on which they were absorbed earlier by Annexure-12 dated 1.9.2001 and pay their salary, arrears as well as current, in accordance with law. In view of the stand in the counter affidavits, the State shall not have any objection in future in respect of payments to petitioners and in treating them as regular employees of the University. However, it is stated that petitioner no.5 has superannuated now, after filing of the writ application. - 6 - Therefore, he shall also be treated as regular employee as having superannuated from regular service of the University. The order dated 1.9.2001 issued by the University shall be operative in respect of petitioner no.5 also till such time he reached the age of superannuation. Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh, J.)