IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17039 of 2009 AKHILESH THAKUR S/O LATE SURAJDEO NARAYAN ALKAPURI BHAGWANPUR N.H. 28 ATPO/PS/DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR, AT PRESENT RETIRED WORKSHOP SUPERINTENDENT- MUZAFFARPUR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, P.O.- MIT, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR. _______ Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY VISHESWARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 2. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY VISHESWARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3. PRINCIPAL MUZAFFARPUR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, P.O.- MIT, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR. 4. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL BIHAR, VEERCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA. __________ Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: Dr. M P Shukla. For the State: Mr. Prashant Sinha, AC to GP 1. For the Accountant General: Mr. Ram Kinkar Choubey. ------ 04. 19 /02/2011 Petitioner was appointed as a Workshop Superintendent In Muzaffarpur Institute of Technology, Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as MIT) on 9.12.1963. He continued in service in the same cadre and superannuated on 30.4.1994. He has now moved the High Court for a direction that he should be treated in the teaching cadre and given the benefit of two personal promotions as Associate Professor after 18 years of service and as Professor on completion of 25 years of service. Since he did not beget such a relief from the State in all these years, he decided to file the present writ application for a suitable direction in his favour. Further assertion which emerges from the writ application is that right from the year 1993 petitioner has been filing repeated 2 representations, last of them being on 18.8.2009 and finally he decided to move the High Court for the relief. Claim of the petitioner is based on a decision rendered by the Hon`ble Supreme Court passed in the case of State of Bihar and others v. Bihar State Workshop Superintendents Federation and others, which was Civil Appeal No. 499 of 1993 and analogous cases. Judgment of the Hon`ble Apex Court has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ application. The issue before the Hon`ble Supreme Court was whether the Workshop Superintendents working in various Engineering Colleges and Government Polytechnics under the State of Bihar are entitled to UGC scales of pay. From the reading of the said judgment it is evident that a stand was taken by the State Government that the post of Workshop Superintendents was not a teaching post and therefore the benefit of UGC pay scales cannot be extended to them. The UGC pay-scale was applicable to only the teaching staff and as per the All Indian Council for Technical Education, post of Workshop Superintendent was not a teaching post. The Apex Court after hearing the rival contentions of the parties held that there were only 15 persons working on the post of Workshop Superintendent and it was a dying cadre. The Association was not concerned about the cases of new pay-scales and new qualifications which may come into play of future appointments. The Court, however, in the peculiarity of the facts and circumstances decided to grant benefit of revised pay-scales allowed to Assistant Professor ( senior scale which was Rs.3000 – 5000). The Court also 3 held that “ so far as this category of the respondents is concerned, it is a dying cadre and even if in terms, they are not entitled to the grant of UGC scale which can only be made applicable in the case of teaching staff serving in the colleges run by the University, we find no justification so far as the respondents are concerned not to allow them the benefit of the pay-scales at least equivalent to the post of Assistant Professors.” In the background to the decision of the Hon`ble Supreme Court passed on 9th February, 1993 State of Bihar issued a notification on 7.6.1993 extending the benefit of the pay-scale of Assistant Professors to the 15 Workshop Superintendents. The said notification is Annexure-8 to the writ application. The list of 15 persons who were given the benefit has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the present writ application and to that extent pay-scale in terms of the direction of the Hon`ble Supreme Court did accrue in favour of the petitioner along with 14 others similarly situated persons. The stand of the State is that even as per the Hon`ble Supreme Court decision there was no clear finding that the post of Workshop Superintendent was a teaching post and therefore mere grant of pay-scale of an Assistant Professor, in terms of the direction of the Apex Court, taking the peculiarity of the facts and circumstances of the case does not amount to declaration that the petitioner was in the teaching cadre and therefore entitled to benefit of personal promotion on the post of Assistant Professor or Professor as is the claim in the writ application. The notification contained in Anneuxre-8 clearly stipulates 4 and states that the benefit is in terms of the direction of the Hon`ble Supreme Court limited in extent and not treated to be as a precedent. This circumstances surely do indicate that there is no walk over to the teaching cadre by mere grant of pay-scale to the petitioner by virtue of the Supreme Court decision contained in Annexure-1. The pay-scale by itself does not alter the cadre of Workshop Superintendents as they were never treated as teaching cadre. Counsel for the petitioner thereafter submits that there is a communication of the Accountant General addressed to the Secretary, Science and Technology, Government of Bihar, indicating that certain circulars and letters issued by the State earlier in this regard required consideration on the claim of the petitioner, for grant of appropriate promotions and that by itself is an indication that there is a case in favour of the petitioner. A reading of the communication made by the office of the Accountant General dated 16.12.2009 by no means can be said to be an acceptance of the claim of the petitioner because the office of the Accountant General has clearly sought a direction from the concerned department on the issue so that appropriate settlement of his retiral dues could be made. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, coupled with the reading of the order of the Hon`ble Supreme Court contained in Annexure-1, the notifications brought on record as Annexure-5 and 8 do not in any manner convince the Court that it all amounts to treating the petitioner in the teaching cadre and therefore entitled to benefit of 5 personal promotions on the post of Associate Professor or Professor on completion of certain time frame i.e. of 18 years and 25 years respectively. If that be so, then the Court has no hesitation in recording that mere grant of pay-scale by the State Government to the petitioner and 14 other Workshop Superintendents may not alter the status or their cadre and they cannot claim other benefits including promotion on the post of Associate Professor or Professor as the case may be. No case therefore is made out for issuance of any direction in favour of the petitioner for to grant of promotion more so when the petitioner had retired way back in the year 1994 and chose to approach the High Court only in the year 2009 for a claim which is not even made out by reading of the Hon`ble Supreme Court’s decision. It is well established even by the Apex Court that repeated representations over the years are no ground for entertaining the writ application at such belated stage and that is the position even in the present case which also weighs upon this Court in granting the benefit sought by the petitioner. The writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)