IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.15245 OF 2007 1.GANESH PRASAD SINGH, S/O LATE HAR GOBIND SINGH, R/O MOHALLA SHAHPUR, P.S AURANGABAD, DISTRICT AURANGABAD. 2.MAHARAJ SINGH, S/O LATE RAJ KUMAR SINGH, R/O KRISHNAPURI, SHAHPUR ROAD, P.S & DISTRICT AURANGABAD, AT PRESENT READER AND HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT, CHEMISTRY, RAM LAKHAN SINGH YADAV COLLEGE, AURANGABAD. 3.DEO NARAYAN YADAV, S/O LATE BALAJEET YADAV, R/O KRISHNAPURI, SHAHPUR ROAD,P.S AND DISTRICT AURANGABAD, AT PRESENT READER, HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT, ZOOLOGY, RAM LAKHAN SINGH YADAV, COLLEGE AURANGABAD. 4.SITA RAM YADAV, S/O SRI BALKESHWAR YADAV, R/O MOHALLA YAMUNA NAGAR, P.S AND DISTRICT AURANGABAD, AT PRESENT READER, HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT HISTORY, RAM LAKHAN SINGH YADAV COLLEGE, AURANGABAD. 5.BALIRAM YADAV, S/O CHAMARI YADAV, R/O MOHALLA YAMUNA NAGAR, P.S AND DISTRICT AURANGABAD AT PRESENT READER, HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT POLITICAL SCIENCE, RAM LAKHAN SINGH YADAV COLLEGE, AURANGABAD. …………………PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1.THE MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA, AT GAYA, THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR. 2.THE VICE CHANCELLOR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA AT GAYA. 3.THE REGISTRAR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA AT GAYA. ………………………RESPONDENTS. ---------------------------------- 4/ 12.12.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. When this writ application was filed on 28.11.2007 as with regard to the following relief:- “That this is an application for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notification issued Vide memo no. 5905 dated- 11/01/2000 under signature of the 2 Respondent No. 3 and further for issuance of an appropriate writ order, direction directing the respondent to allow the petitioner No. 2 to 5 to continue on the post of Reader and the consequential benefits and further for issuance of appropriate direction to grant all the benefits including their retrial benefits to the petitioner no. 1 attached to the post of Readers and further also be pleased to direct the respondents to restore all the benefits as the Reader to the petitioners and further the respondents be pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere with the working of the petitioner no. 2 to 5 as the Reader in the College save and except in accordance with law.” the petitioners had two fold grievance, namely reversion from the post of Reader as well as reinstatement on the post of reader with the consequential benefits. In today’s counter affidavit filed by the officials of the Magadh University, it has been explained that earlier the decision taken for reversion of the petitioners was correct, inasmuch as, the concurrence of the Commission was to be obtained within a period of six months. It is, however, explained that now promotion has been given to the petitioners from retrospective date and in this regard paragraph nos. 3 to 7 being relevant are quoted hereinbelow:- “3.That it is pertinent to mention that the petitioners were promoted to the post of Readers in different subject and recommendation 3 for the concurrence was sent to the university service commission as per the statutory provision and during those period the payment of salary in the Rank of Reader was started. 4. That it is worth to mention that as per the section 58(10), the concurrence of the commission was to be got within six months otherwise they would be reverted and get their salary in lecturer’s pay scale. Please read the statute as under:- “Not withstanding to the contrary contained in this Act or statute, Rules or Regulations made there under promotion given on temporary basis to the post of Reader or Professor of Officer of the University shall not be valid for a period of exceeding six months, unless recommended by the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) service commission. 5. That hence, the decision taken by the university at that time was correct and the petitioner prayer for quashing the university notification by which the salary in the pay scale of Reader was kept stopped. 6. That now the matter regarding the promotion in the Rank of Reader to the petitioners was placed before Screening committee and completed all procedure and that it was placed before the University Selection Committee. 7. That all petitioners got again their promotion in the Rank of readers with effect from the different dates, which are hereunder:- Petitioners Subject Scheme Effective date of promotion Notification No. 1 Ganesh Prasad Singh Maths T.B.P.S. 08.11.89 PC/812/2011 17.09.11 2 Maharaj Singh Chem T.B.P.S. 08.11.89 PC/844/2011 27.09.11 3 Deo Narayan Yadav Zoology T.B.P.S. 08.11.89 PC/313/2011 17.09.11 4 Sita Ram Yadav History T.B.P.S. 23.01.89 PC/348/2011 27.09.11 5 Bali Ram Yadav Pol. Sc. T.B.P.S. 21.09 PC/812/2011 17.09.11 4 Mr. Taranath Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the basis of the aforementioned averments, petitioners' grievance with regard to either reversion from the post of reader or being reinstated on the post of Reader of course stands redressed but there is nothing in the counter affidavit as with regard to the grant of consequential benefits. This Court in absence of pleadings on record is not aware as to how much amount was already paid to the petitioners, when they were earlier given promotion on the post of Reader which was later on cancelled while reverting them to the post of lecturer on the ground of non-compliance of Section 58(10) of the Bihar State Universities Act. However when the University has itself notified the retrospective promotion of the petitioners, it will also have to decide with regard to admissible payment to them on account of such promotion. This exercise therefore must be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and the petitioners must be given the same 5 consequential monetary benefit which had been also given to similarly situated persons. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)