IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 725 of 2004 1 Rakesh Kumar Thakur, son of Sri Rameshwar Thakur, resident of village – Mahuawa, P S – Chiraiya, District – East Champaran (Motihari) 2 Ajay Kumar, son of Sri Chandeshwar Narayan Thakur, resident of village – Mahuawa, P S – Chiraiya, District – East Champaran (Motihari) 3 Neshar Ahman, son of Shafi Ahmad, resident of village – Mahuawa, P S – Chiraiya, District – East Champaran (Motihari) 4 Lal Babu Prasad, son of Saryug Sah, resident of village – Mahuawa, P S – Chiraiya, District – East Champaran (Motihari) 5 Ram Pravesh Prasad, son of Sri Jokhu Prasad, resident of village – Mahuawa, P S – Chiraiya, District – East Champaran (Motihari) - Petitioners Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 The Secretary –cum- Director, Science and Technology Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3 The Deputy Secretary, Science and Technology Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 4 The Joint Secretary (Administration), Science and Technology Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 5 The Joint Secretary, Science and Technology Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, Patna 6 The Deputy Director (Technical) Science and Technology Department, Government of Bihar, Patna - Respondents *** For the petitioner : Mr Sunil Kumar, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr A C to A A G 1 *** 6 19.01.2011 The petitioners were non-teaching employees of the Indian College of Engineering, Motihari. The said College was a Private Engineering College and was taken over by Government. The dispute relates to their retention in service consequent to take over. Alongwith petitioner’s College, several other Colleges were also taken over. Several rounds of litigations have been fought by the employees, teaching and non-teaching, for their retention in service. Recently, the matter has been finally considered in the case of Sunil Kumar and Others –Versus- State of Bihar and Others being CWJC No 10788 of 2003 and analogous cases 2 and by a comprehensive judgment, some of the writ petitions have been allowed and some were dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the facts, in so far as the present writ petitioners are concerned, are squarely covered by those in respect of whom the writ petitions were allowed. The consideration is from paragraph – VIII, sub paragraph – XXII onwards. In sum and substance, the submission is that Government took two resolutions simultaneously, one Resolution No 96 dated 15.01.1990 and the other Resolution No 97 dated 15.01.1990. In the first Resolution, a decision was taken to regularise the services of all teaching and non-teaching staff who possessed requisite qualifications. There were no ifs and buts. There was no mention of staffing pattern or otherwise. In the second Resolution, it was decided that the Engineering Colleges should run on basis of staffing pattern as set by AICTE with BIT, Sindri as model but that Resolution did not provide for termination of surplus staff because in the earlier Resolution itself, it was decided to regularise them. The fact is that while the staffing pattern would be set in motion, the staff would be retained as such or absorbed elsewhere but they would not be terminated or thrown on the roads. Learned counsel for the State took time to examine the said judgment and fairly conceded that so far as petitioners are concerned, their case is fully covered by the said judgment and consequently nothing is left for this Court to adjudicate. Therefore, this application is also disposed of in terms of the operative order, as contained in paragraph-10 of the said judgment and, as such, they would be deemed to be in continuous service from 31.01.1991 except in relation to payment of arrears of salary. If this order is not 3 implemented within four months, they would have right to claim and receive arrears of salary as well. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)