IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.902 of 2010 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 3438/2000) 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department Of Human Resources, Bihar, Patna 2. The Deputy Secretary, Department Of Human Resources, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna Versus 1. Jahnabi Mukherjee, W/O Sri Nikhilanand Mukharjee, R/O Beengali Tola, P.O.&P.S.-Samastipur, Distt-Samastipur. 2. The L.N.Mithila University, Darbhanga through its Vice Chancellor Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga 3. The Vice Chancellor, L.N.Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga 4. The Finance Officer, L.N.Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga 5. The Professor Incharge, Women'S College Samastipur Town, P.S.& Distt-Samastipur……………………Respondents /Respondents (2nd set) with Letters Patent Appeal No.773 of 2010 IN (CIVIL REVIEW 20/2010) 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department Of Human Resources Bihar, Patna 2. The Deputy Secretary, Department Of Human Resources, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna…………………………………………Petitioners/Appellants Versus 1. Jahnabi Mukherjee, W/O Sri Nikhilanand Mukharjee, R/O Beengali Tola, P.O. and P.S. -Samastipur, Distt.- Samastipur 2. The L.N.Mithila University Darbhanga through its Vice Chancellor, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 3. The Vice Chancellor, L.N.Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga 4. The Registrar, L.N.Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga 5. The Professor Incharge, Women'S College, Samastipur, Town, P.S. And Distt.- Samastipur…………………Respondents/Respondents (2nd set) For the Appellant : Mr. Sashi Bhusan Kumar, Advocate SC-7 For the L.N.M.U., R. No. 2 to 4: Mr. Ajay Behari Sinha, Advocate R. No. 1: Mr. Amber Nath Banerjee R. No. 5: Mr. Sri Ranjan Kumar, Advocate --------------- 6. 08.12.2011 Heard the parties. The State of Bihar has preferred this appeal on two grounds. Firstly, the writ-petitioner should have impleaded the State of Bihar in C.W.J.C. No. 3438 of 2000 which was disposed of only after hearing the counsel for the University on 23.3.2006 vide Annexure-7. this plea has been advanced because the liability to pay the dues of salary to the writ petitioner on the post of Lecturer of Music in the concerned College under the Lilit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga had to fall upon the State Government and it has actually so fallen on account of subsequent impleadment in a contempt petition bearing M.J.C. No. 2831 of 2006. Secondly, on merits it has been submitted that the documents on record, such as, Annexures-4 and 5 as well as the final recommendation in Annexure-3 show that there was a dispute as to who shall be entitled for absorption against the second sanctioned post of Lecturer in Music in Mahila College, Samastipur and it was on 25.9.1996 that the University was informed from the office of Chancellor that appointment of Sri R.S.Thakur as Lecturer in Music was irregular and hence the Chancellor was pleased to approve that the petitioner be appointed against the said post. As a result by Annexure-5 the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lecturer in Music for the first time on 10.10.1996 and prior to that date she was holding the post of Instructor in Music in the said College. On these materials it has been submitted that the direction given by the Writ Court to make payment of dues of salary to the writ petitioner for the post of Lecturer with effect from 8.1.1982 when the post was sanctioned is erroneous on the face of record and the State Government should not be asked to provide funds for making such erroneous payment. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant-State, the direction of the Writ Court for fixing the pay of the writ petitioner with effect from 08.01.1982 and for paying the arrears and difference of salary within three months needs to be modified only by holding that for the post of Lecturer, the pay of the petitioner should be fixed with effect from her appointment on that post by Annexure-5 dated 10.10.1996. Learned counsel for the writ-petitioner submitted that the order of the Writ Court granting relief with effect from 08.1.1982 was based upon the fact that the claim of another person was not justified and the writ petitioner should have been given that post from the date it became available. In our considered view, the writ-petitioner must be held entitled to the pay of Lecturer in Music only from the date she was so appointed vide Annexure-5 dated 10.10.1996. Earlier she had to be treated only as an Instructor in Music. Accordingly, we modify the order of the Writ Court dated 23.3.2006 contained in Annexure-7. If the University has not paid the arrears and difference of salary if any so far, it must be done in the light of this order within three months. Consequent upon the fixation of pay, the writ-petitioner would be entitled for revised pension and other consequential benefits in accordance with law. Since the writ petitioner retired long back in the year 2004 and she is going without pension, her pension should also be fixed and paid with due arrears within a period of four months from to-day. L.P.A. No. 773 of 2010 relates to same matter but arises out of Civil Review No. 20 of 2010 which was dismissed on 26.3.2010. Hence the aforesaid order shall govern both the appeals. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of. Mkc/ (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)