IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17693 of 2008 Upendra Narayan Mishra, son of Late Rasdhari Mishra, resident of Village- Suja, P.O.-Suja, P.S. Mufasil Begusarai, District- Begusarai............................Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Director, Higher Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariate, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Vice Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 4. The Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 5. The Finance Officer, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 6. The Principal, G. D. College, Begusarai.........................Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate. For the University: Mr. P.N.Shahi, Sr. Advocate. For the State : Mr. D.K.Singh, A.C. to G.P.V. ---------- 3. 28.01.2011. Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, State and the University. This writ application was filed for quashing the letter no. 132 of 2000 dated 20.07.2000 whereby the petitioner was directed to retire with effect from 31.08.1997. The quashing of letter no. 3838 of 2003 dated 12.05.2003 has also been prayed for, whereby the recovery of salary from 01.02.1997 to 20.07.2000 has been directed to be made. The further prayer is for payment of difference of salary from March, 1991 till the date of the retirement and 2 for the payment of first time bound promotion scale from 09.12.1982 to 31.03.1993. So far as the first part of the prayer with regard to retirement with retrospective effect is concerned, that matter has already been settled in C.W.J.C.No.12752 of 2002 by this Hon’ble Court in following words:- “The first thing is to be noted that as per the University Act and statutes framed thereunder, the date of superannuation is fixed as the date on which a staff completes the age of 62 years. In the present case, as noted above, on completion of age of 62, petitioner superannuated. There is no provision in the Act or the statutes framed thereunder by which it has been directed that the maximum service period under any condition would not exceed 44 years. In view of these two facts, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the petitioner over stayed beyond superannuation and that too wrongly. The age of superannuation being 62, petitioner did retire, in fact, at the age of 62 years. Another aspect I would like to point out here that it is not open to the University to urge that the petitioner was wrongly appointed prior to attaining majority i.e., age of 18 years. More so, after 44 years of service, such an issue cannot be permitted to raise. In this regard, I may refer to a Division Bench judgment of this Court since reported in 1995(1)P.L.J.R. 183 (Mokhtar Ahmad Vs. Bihar 3 State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.) wherein similar view has been taken. There is yet another aspect of the matter. Petitioner worked only upto the age of 62 and not beyond that. Work having been taken by the University, University cannot be permitted to deny full payment for the work done.” Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Library Peon on 24.08.1953, though his services were confirmed by the Governing Body in the year 1954. Hence, the petitioner completed 44 years of service on 23rd of August, 1997. Hence, in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner cannot agitate his retrospective retirement nor the University can recover his salary from 1st February 1997 to 20.07.2000, which has been sought to be recovered vide letter dated 13.05.2003, as contained in Annexure-4, since the University has taken work from the petitioner till 20.07.2000, hence, in the interest of justice the University cannot also deny the salary to the petitioner for the period he has worked. Accordingly, the letter no. 3838 of 2003 dated 12.05.2003 as contained in Annexure-4 is hereby quashed and it is expected that the University will make the payment 4 accordingly which is due, in any case within two months of the production of the order. So far the payment of difference of salary from March, 1991 till the date of retirement and the payment of first time bound promotion from 01.04.1981 are concerned, Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi learned counsel for the L. N. Mithila University submits that if an appropriate representation will be filed the same will be considered in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the representation of the petitioner. Let the petitioner file an appropriate representation for the aforesaid two grievances before the respondent no.3 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Let the respondent no.3, Vice Chancellor, L. N. M. Univeristy, Darbhanga, decide the claim of the petitioner within a period of three months of receipt of such representation. Accordingly, this writ application is disposed off with the aforesaid observations/directions. U.K. (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.)