IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6975 of 2007 1. DENIS FIDELIS, son of shri fidelis Paitrik, resident of Mohalla Digha Ghat, P.S. Digha Ghat, Town & District-Patna. 2. Vinod Kumar son of Late Ram Ratan Paswan, resident of Kurji Balupur, Bhjrichandra Nagar, P.S. Digha, Town District -Patna. …………………..Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through secretary, Higher Education Department, Vikas Bhawan, patna. 2. The Registrar, Patna University, Patna. 3. The Principal, Patna Women’s College Patna. …………………..Respondents. ----------- 4 8.10.2010 Heard Mr. R.N. Mukhopadhayay, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the Patna University, A.C. to S.C.18 for the State as also Mr. Kumar Ravish, learned counsel for the Principal of Patna Women’s College. In this writ application the two petitioners have prayed for the following relief:- “That by this writ petition the petitioners pray for a direction to the respondents to accept the joining of the petitioners against the promotional post of Laboratory Bearer in pursuance of the order dated 26.11.2005 issued by the Registrar, Patna University on the basis of the order of the Chancellor and to pay the consequential benefits.” Noticing these aspect that it was unwholly unreasonable on the post of the Principal Patna Women’s College to have kept the petitioners of their order of promotion this Court in its order dated 15.9.2010 relevant portion whereof reads as follows:- “This Court would find it necessary to call upon the respondent no.3, the Principal, Patna Women’s College, Patna as to under what authority of law, she has refused to abide by the order of the 2 University as with regard to the promotion of the petitioner. It has to be kept in mind that such promotion was notified under the order of the Vice Chancellor of the University, who is the competent authority to notify such promotion in terms of Section 10 of the Patna University Act and that too on the recommendation made by the Principal herself vide Annexure nos. 8 & 9 to the writ application.” A counter affidavit has been accordingly filed by the Principal stating that the joining of the petitioners has already been accepted and that they are working against their promoted posts. As a matter of fact, Mr. R.N. Mukhopadhayay, learned counsel for the petitioner, in course of submission would explain that in view of today’s counter affidavit filed by the Principal of Patna Women’s College the main grievance relating to acceptance of joining of the petitioners on the promoted post stands redressed, inasmuch as, during pendency of this writ application the joining of the petitioners on the post of Laboratory Bearers has been accepted on 21.3.2009 w.e.f. 26.11.2005. He would, however, submit that since the authorities of the University and the College have consumed a period of four years in implementing such order, the payment of consequential benefit, as also prayed for in this writ application, unless directed by this Court, will not be made to the petitioners even in the next eight years. Mr. KUMAR RAVISH, learned counsel for the Principal of Patna Women’s College has very fairly submitted that there would also be no issue on payment of enhanced salary of the petitioners to which they have become entitled in view of order of their promotion and to that effect a recommendation has already 3 been made by the Principal of the College to the University for fixation of salary in the higher pay scale of the petitioners. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the respondent authorities of the University and the College to ensure that the petitioners are no longer made victim in the matter of payment of their consequential benefits. Before parting with, this Court must observe that in all fairness the Principal of Patna Women’s College ought to have either accepted the joining of the petitioners immediately on tgheir promoted posts or could have moved the higher authority, but should have not kept the matter pending for the period over four years. Nonetheless, now when the dispute has been resolved and the joining of the petitioners have already been accepted and they are said to be also working on their promoted posts, this Court would direct that the consequential monetary benefits of such promotion be also extended to the petitioners within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and directions this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)