IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 9636 of 2006 Prof Dr Raghubansh Jha, son of late Pandit Lutan Jha, resident of Village and Post – Bhagwatipur Nahar, Via – Manapatti, P S – Pandaul, District – Madhubani at present of Mohalla – Misar Tola, P S – Darbhanga Town, District – Darbhanga retired as Professor and Head of the Department of Philosophy, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga -Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar through Commissioner –cum- Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Patna 2 Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, P S – Lalit Narayan Mithila University Campus, Darbhanga through its Registrar 3 Bihar State University (Constituent) Service Commission – 9, Bailey Road, Patna through its Secretary 4 The Vice Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, P S – Lalit Narayan Mithila University Campus, Darbhanga 5 The Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, P S – Lalit Narayan Mithila University Campus, Darbhanga 6 The Chairman, Bihar State University (Constituent College) Service Commission – 9, Bailey Road, Patna 7 The Secretary, Bihar State University (Constituent College) Service Commission – 9, Bailey Road, Patna 8 The Director, Higher Education, Human Resources Development Department, Patna 9 The Finance Offcier, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, P S – Lalit Narayan Mithila University Campus, Darbhanga - Respondents *** For the petitioner : M/s Gajendra Kr Jha, Ratan Kr, Advocates For the University : Mr Partha Sarthy, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr A A G IX *** 4 31.03.2011 The petitioner (now superannuated) was a Teacher in the Lalit Narayan Mithila University. He has come to this Court for grant of due promotion to him with consequential benefits. Petitioner has asserted and in the counter affidavit filed by the University, it has not been denied rather specifically accepted that the University having found the petitioner fit for being promoted as Professor, recommended the case to the Bihar 2 State University (Constituent Colleges), Service Commission for approval and in anticipation thereof, granted merit promotion to the petitioner to the post of University Professor with effect from 27.12.1984 which was duly informed by the University on 06.05.1985. It may be noted that effective date of promotion has been subsequently amended by the University to 17.02.1984. For two decades thereafter, the University kept reminding the Service Commission with regard to grant of approval to the merit promotion as given to the petitioner by the University but the Commission failed to respond at all for reasons best known. Ultimately, petitioner superannuated. At the time of superannuation, petitioner’s retiral remunerations were fixed on his substantive post of Reader and not Professor on which he retired. To make it clear, upto retirement, he was paid his remunerations as Professor but post retiral dues were calculated on basis of petitioner being a Reader in absence of approval of the Service Commission. This is what has brought the petitioner to this Court. In the counter affidavit of the University, these basic facts are not disputed. What is stated is that, in the meantime, the Service Commission itself has been dissolved and the power has been conferred on the University itself to be exercised by a Committee to be constituted in that regard. When the counter affidavit was filed in the year 2008, the Committee was yet to be constituted but when this matter was taken up today, Mr Partha Sarthy, learned counsel for the University fairly places on record the letter of the University dated 15.03.2011 informing him that the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of University Professor was considered by the Selection Committee of the University and the 3 petitioner was granted time bound promotion to the post of University Professor with effect from 01.02.1985 which has been approved by the Syndicate of the University and notification was in the process of being issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in my view, rightly took a serious objection to this. He rightly submits that when the University itself recommended as far back as in 1984/1985 to the Service Commission for grant of merit promotion to the post of University Professor in respect of petitioner with effect from 17.02.1984, it should not have granted, ignoring this fact, time bound promotion with effect from 01.02.1985. University itself having found fit for grant of merit promotion to the petitioner with effect from 17.02.1984 cannot now change its stand without disclosing the basis thereof or without there being justifiable reasons for departing from that. Having considered the matter, in my view, first it is clear that at least with effect from 01.02.1985, petitioner has been granted promotion to the post of University Professor. That being so, the retiral dues have to be worked out on basis thereof and, accordingly, revised as previously the retiral dues have been fixed on basis of petitioner being on substantive post. All consequences must also, accordingly, follow. Secondly, the University and, in particular, the Selection Committee constituted for the purposes of granting promotion would be required to reconsider the matter of the petitioner only in respect of grant of merit promotion with effect from 17.02.1984, thus, preponing the date of promotion in the circumstances, as noted above. This decision must be taken by the Selection Committee within three months from the date of 4 production of a copy of this order before the Vice Chancellor of the Lalit Narayan Mithila University whose responsibility it would be to implement the orders of this Court. All consequential financial benefits to the petitioner in respect of he being promoted as University Professor either under Time Bound Promotion Scheme or under Merit Promotion Scheme must be paid to the petitioner in full within six months from the date of production of a copy of this order before the Vice Chancellor of the University upon whom would be the liability for the implementation of the orders of this Court and it is made clear that in case full and final payments are not made within the period stipulated above, the payments then would be liable to be made with interest at the rate of 6% from the time amounts were due to the time payments are made. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)