IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7581 of 2002 Prof. Dr. Nand Kishore Rai, Son of late Shri Mahima Rai, Resident of Village Beladih, Gaura, P.S. Katyan, District Gopalganj. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Director, Higher Education, Patna, Bihar. 3. Educational Secretary, Patna, Bihar. 4. Chariman, University Service Commission (Constituent), Patna, Bihar. 5. Vice-Chancellor Bhim Rao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. 6. Vice-Chancellor, Jai Prakash University, Chapra. 7. The Registrar, Jai Prakash University, Chapra. -------- Respondents ----------- 6 23.07.2010 I.A. No. 5948 of 2010 Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perusing the fact mentioned in this application, the prayer made therein is allowed and the wife of the petitioner, namely, Janki Devi is directed to be substituted in place of the original petitioner. Let office make necessary correction in this writ application. CWJC No. 7581 of 2002 Heard Mr. Sudhir Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the Jai Prakash 2 University as also counsel for the State. The prayer of the substituted petitioner in fact pursuing the cause left behind by the husband, original writ petitioner, is very limited as would be found from paragraph no.1 of the writ application, which reads as follows:- “1. That this is an application for issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions commanding the respondent authorities Specially No.4 (Chairman, University Service Commission (Constituent) Patna herein after refer as Commission) to consider the case of Petitioner for promotion to the rank of University Professor and issue Concurrence letter in favour of Petitioner by taking step pursuant to notification issued under the Signature of Registrar, Bihar University contained in Memo No. B/4601 dated 16.12.89 whereby and whereunder Petitioner’s Promotion from the post of Reader to University Professor granted Under 16 years time bound Promotion Scheme in recommendation of Screening Committee, Bihar University W.E.F. 1.2.1985 Subject to the approval of Commission. The petitioner further prays for any other relief to which he is found 3 entitled to under the law and in fact and circumstances for present case.” Mr. Singh, with regard to the aforementioned prayer, would submit that the original petitioner was given provisional promotion by the order of the University dated 16.12.1989 subject to the concurrence, i.e. approval of the University Service (Constituent Colleges) Commission but the Commission did not take any decision on the same and the original petitioner had to retire on 28.2.1995 in a state of flux and uncertainty. He has also placed reliance on the order of the University dated 17.8.2001 to submit that even after the retirement of the original petitioner, no decision was communicated by the Commission as a result whereof, though the petitioner was promoted on the post of Professor by the University with effect from 1.2.1985, his retirement benefit was sought to be fixed only on the post of Reader. He would submit that now when the original petitioner has died and his wife is only interested in getting the retirement benefit on the last actual entitlement of her 4 husband, this Court, in the changed circumstance, when the Commission also stand abolished and its power has been vested in the University itself, would direct the University to take a final decision in the matter of grant of promotion to the original petitioner. Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the University would submit that the writ application is belated even if the cause of action is taken to be from the year 2001 when the last letter was written by the University to the original writ petitioner. This Court, in the facts and circumstances of this case, would not like to go into the question of delay especially when the substituted writ petitioner, the wife does not claim any payment of salary of her husband. The husband of the petitioner, the original petitioner, having been given promotion by the University which had of course a life of only six months, if he was allowed to continue to work as a Professor and in fact was also paid his salary in professor’s pay-scale, there would be little 5 for this Court to dwell upon but then if ultimately the University would find that such promotion given to the original petitioner was not permissible under the 16 years time bound promotion statutes in which he was given such promotion in the year 1989 with effect from 1.2.1985, the University would pass necessary orders and in that event, the retirement benefit of the husband of the petitioner would be calculated only on the basis of the post of Reader but if it is found that such time bound promotion was permissible to him and the original petitioner was entitled for the same with effect from 1.2.1985 or any other subsequent date, the University will re-calculate the retirement benefit of the husband of the petitioner only on that basis and also pay the petitioner balance amount beyond what has already been paid to her or her husband earlier. This exercise, however, must be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 6 With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)