IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11617 of 2006 SHEELA DEVI wife of Late Murari Prasad, resident of village- Janta Chowk, PS- Khajanchi Hat, District- Purnea. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Human Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. the Additional Secretary, Human Resources Department govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura through its Registrar, Laloo Nagar, madhepura. 5. The Vice Chancellor, B. N. Mandal University, Laloo Nagar, Madhepura. 6. The Principal, K. B. Jha College, Katihar, District- Katihar. … Respondents. ----------- 2. 06.10.2010 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s husband was a non-teaching employee in K.B. Jha College, Katihar which became constituent in 4th Phase in the light of Government decision dated 17.8.1986 and he would be deemed to be continued in service till 29.6.1997 when he had died during the pendency of CWJC No. 7781 of 1994 filed by 44 employees of K. B. Jha College, Katihar including the husband of the petitioner. Since this Court had quashed the order of termination of the petitioner and 43 others dated 18.8.1994, the husband of the petitioner would be deemed 2 to have been restored back in service at least for the period till he was alive i.e. 29.6.1997. He has further submitted that as the other petitioners whose services were terminated by the University on 18.8.1994 were ultimately regularized in service after the order of this Court in CWJC No. 7781 of 1994 dated 10.2.1998 as is also admitted in the show-cause reply filed by the University in MJC No. 676 of 1995, the widow- petitioner would also be entitled for the benefit of regularization of her husband and thus a direction should be issued by this Court to the University for passing an order for regularization of the service of the husband of the petitioner on the basis of his continued service without break from 1986 till his death on 29.6.1997, which could entitle her to receive death cum retirement benefit of her husband In the opinion of this court, the order contained in Annexure-1 (CWJC No. 7781 of 1994) did not envisage regularization of service of any of the 44 petitioners. If the University on its own accord had regularized the service of alleged 42 persons, such regularization could only be projected, if their names were ultimately recommended by Justice S. C. Agarwal 3 Commission which was constituted by the Apex Court for examining the validity and correctness of the appointments made in all the 36 colleges which became constituent in fourth phase in 1986. Counsel for the petitioner has not made any assertion as with regard to recommendation of Justice S. C. Agarwal Commission nor the University has filed any counter affidavit explaining this aspect. Since the widow of the petitioner has her only limited grievance which may make herself to get certain benefit of the period of service of the husband of the petitioner till he was alive, if his services were found fit to be regularized by the Justice S. C. Agarwal Commission, this Court instead of keeping this writ application pending would direct the Vice Chancellor of the University to look into the limited grievance of the petitioner as with regard to absorption of the service of her husband in terms of section 4(i) (xiv) of the Bihar State University Act and in the light of direction given by the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh & Ors, reported in (2005) 9 SCC 129 while accepting recommendation made by Justice S. C. Agarwal 4 Commission. It is, however, made clear that if the services of the husband of the petitioner is found fit to be regularized/absorbed in terms of section 4(i) (xiv) of the Act, the petitioner being the widow of late Murari Prasad would be entitled for all consequential benefit as extended to other similarly situated employees of the College in furtherance of the action taken on the report of Justice S. C. Agarwal Commission. If however the services of the husband of the petitioner would not be found fit to be absorbed, the petitioner will have no claim whatsoever. In order to decide this aspect, the case in hand is remitted back to the Vice-Chancellor of the University who is expected to pass a reasoned order in this regard within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a representation filed by the petitioner enclosing all the necessary evidence as also a copy of this order. Let it however be made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case and has simply remitted the matter to the Vice-Chancellor of the University to take his decision strictly in accordance with law. 5 With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. kanchan/- ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)