IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5919 of 2003 1. Rama Nand Jha, Son of Late Ramdeo Jha, Resident of Village Kharka, P.S. Nanpur, District Sitamarhi. 2. Purandar Mishra, Son of late Mahanand Mishra, Resident of Village Satghara, P.S. Babubarhi, District Madhubani. 3. Syed Rizwan Ahmad, Son of Laate S.M. Sadrul Haque, Resident of Mohalla Murghia Chak, P.S. Laheriasarai, District Darbhanga. 4. Shashi Kant Jha, Son of Late Sone Lal Jha, Resident of Village Bikrampur, P.S. Desri, District Vaishali. 5. Maneshwawr Nath, Son of late Baleshwwar Nath, Resident of Village Subhankarpur, P.S. Town, Darbhanga, District Darbhanga. 6. Naresh Jha, Son of late Dev Narayan Jha, Resident of Village Haripurdih Tola, P.S. Kaluahi, District Madhubani. 7. Dukhmochan Jha, Son of late Dhaneshwar Jha, Resident of Village Pariharpur, P.S. Rajnagar, District Madhubani. 8. Mohit Chandra Thakur, Son of late Badri Narayan Thakur, Resident of Village Nahas Rupauli, P.S. Bisfi, District Madhubani. 9. Gulab Choudhary, Son of late Hit Narayan Choudhary, Resident of Village Kanakpur, P.S. Sakatpur, District Darbhanga. 10. Amar Nath Jha, son of late Buddhi Nath Jha, Resident of Village Basauli, P.S. Rahika, District Madhubani. 11. Madhukant Jha, Son of late Rame Kant Jha, Resident of Village Narayanpur, P.S. Khodawanpur, District Begusarai. 12. Harishankar Jha, Son of late Girija Dutta Jha, Resident of village Chikna, P.S. Ghoghardiha, District Madhubani. 13. Md. Asghar Ali Ansari, Son of late Nurul Ghani, Resident of Mohalla Abdullahganj, P.S. Laheriasarai, District Darbhanga. 14. Jagannath Jha, Son of late Dhaneshwar Jha, Resident of Village Pariharpur, P.S. Rajnagar, District Madhubani. -------- Petitioners Versus 1. L.N. Mithila University through its Vice Chancellor, Darbhanga, District Darbhanga. 2. The Vice Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga, District Darbhanga. 3. The Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga, District Darbhanga. ------------ Respondents ----------- 3 12.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The prayer of the petitioners in this writ application reads as follows:- “1(i) For quashing the office order 2 issued under Memo No. 3345- 3400/2002 dated 20.3.2002 by the Respondent No.3 by which the petitioners have been designated as “Typist-cum-Assistant” and allowed the pay scale of “Assistant” with effect from 16.7.1978. (ii) For direction to implement the office order issued under Memo No. 714-62/99 dated 12.4.99 with effect from the date mentioned in the above office order. (iii) For direction to the respondents concerned to pay the salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 to all the 14 petitioners with immediate effect as the similarly situated employees/juniors are being paid their salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/-. (iv) For direction to the respondents concerned to pay to all the 14 petitioners the arrears difference of salary of what they have got and what they should have got in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 for the period from 16.7.88 till the date of implementation of the payment of salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1,640-2,900/-. (v) For direction to the respondents concerned to pay to all the 14 petitioners the arrears difference of salary of what they have got and what they should have got in the pay scale of Rs. 1500-2750 for 3 the period from 01.01.1986 to 15.7.88. (vi) For direction to the respondents concerned to pay the petitioner no.1 Rama Nand Jha the arrear difference of salary of what he has got and what he should have got in the pay scale of Rs. 1640- 2900 for the period from 16.7.88 onwards because he has been paid the pay scale of the Rs. 1400-2300 from February 1999 to June 2002 and from July 2002 he is being paid the pay scale of Rs. 1500- 2750/-. (vii) For direction to the respondents concerned to pay the petitioner nos. 5 and 9 (Muneshwar Nath and Gulab Choudhary, respectively) arrear and difference of salary of what they have got and what they should have got in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 from 16.7.1988 onwards because they are still being paid their salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 from February, 1999. (viii) For direction to the respondents concerned to grant and implement all the consequential benefits to which the petitioners are entitled to, right from 16.7.1978. (ix) For direction to the respondents concerned to pay the petitioners the interest and penal interest falling due, due to still not paying the arrears despite the 4 Hon’ble Court’s order dated 18.1.1999 to pay the arrears within three months from 18.01.1999.” As with regard to the aforementioned prayers, Mr. Baidya Nath Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have now no other grievance except their designation being now given in the order dated 20.3.2002 (Annexure-7) wherein they are being shown as a Typist-cum- Clerk. Mr. Thakur would further submit that there is no post in the University known as Typist-cum-Clerk and therefore, the petitioners should not be allowed to work against a non-existent post. In this regard, reliance was also placed on the orders of this Court in the writ application filed by the petitioners, CWJC No. 10097 of 1997 as also an order of this court dated 14.9.2000 passed in MJC No. 947 of 2000. From the orders of this Court, it would become clear that what was actually recognized in respect of the petitioners was that they are entitled to get the pay-scale of Assistant. This Court had never given them the post of Assistant. Therefore, the 5 petitioners cannot claim the post of Assistant or the promotional channel of the post of Assistant. Then comes the submission of Mr. Thakur that there are certain orders to support the claim of the petitioners that they have been given the post of Assistant. In the opinion of this Court, the designation being claimed by the petitioners of the post of Assistant can be given to them only when there is substantive appointment or promotion has been made on the post of Assistant. In absence thereof, no another method can be adopted for getting the post of Assistant. In the light of the aforesaid observation, the petitioners may approach the University and if it is found that there is no post of Typist-cum-Clerk in the University, the petitioners will be re- designated on the posts against which their substantive appointed. With the aforementioned observation, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)