IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9747 of 2002 KRISHNA PRASAD, son of Late Hari Mahto, resident of village- and P. O. Singthu, P. S. Manpur, District- Nalanda….. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE V.C.,RAJENDRA AGRUCULTURE University, Pusa, District- Samastipur. 2. The Director Research-cum- Chairman of Valuation Committee, Rajendra Agriculture University, Pusa. 3. The Director, Administration, Rajendra Agriculture University, Pusa. 4. The Registrar, Rajendra Agriculture University, Pusa. 5. The Regional Director, Agriculture Institute,Lohia Nagar, Patna.-20. .. Respondents. ----------- 5. 25.06.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for Rajendra Agriculture University (hereinafter referred to as „the University‟). The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition as reduced in its prayer reads as follows:- “(i) To grant super time scale to the petitioner with effect from 1.2.1994 for which the recommendation of the Fitment-cum-Pay Revision Committee. (ii) To fix the salary of the petitioner in Super Time scale with effect from 1.2.1994 and also for payment of the consequential benefit including arrears of salaries since 1.2.1994. (iii) To grant of natural promotion to the petitioner i.e. Junior Selection Grade and Senior Selection Grade with effect from the date on which the petitioner was entitled for the said promotion i.e. 1.4.1981 and 1.9.1991 respectively on the basis of his seniority and the availability of the post in the said two cadres. - 2 - (iv) To grant promotion to the petitioner on the post of Administrative Officer with effect from 1.8.2001 on the basis of his seniority and availability of the post in the said cadre. (v) To revise the pension of the petitioner in the terms with Super time Scale and to pay the other retiral benefits including the pensions as per the new fixation in the Super Time scale.” Counsel for the petitioner in this regard would submit that such grievance of the petitioner was made subject matter of a representation filed by him through proper channel and the immediate Controlling Authority of the petitioner vide his letter dated 18.3.2002 had also made a recommendation to the University to consider the same. It is however found that while the petitioner had filed this writ petition after almost 5 months of aforesaid recommendation made by the immediate Controlling Authority, the University in next eight years has even not been in a position to file its counter affidavit. Dr. Upadhayay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of University would only submit that the file of this case has been recently handed over to him and he has also not received any instruction in the matter from the University till date. - 3 - These internal things of the University with regard to engaging a new counsel or giving no instructions to its counsel is now really becoming an order of the day in almost all the cases and therefore this Court cannot allow this practice to continue any longer. Thus, while deprecating such practice of the University and expecting that in future the University will not come out with such frivolous plea, this Court would direct the respondent no. 3 to take immediate decision, if not already taken, on the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner by the Regional Director of the Agriculture Institute, Patna in his letter No. 593 dated 18th March 2002 as contained in Annexure-9. Such decision must be taken, if not already taken by a speaking order and a copy whereof must be communicated in writing to the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Let it be made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner which has to be adjudicated by the University and its authorities strictly in accordance with law. - 4 - It goes without saying that if the petitioner‟s any grievance or all of the grievances are redressed in the light of the recommendation of the respondent no. 5 and the same would lead to consequential monetary benefit, its payment also be extended to the petitioner within a period of one month of such decision taken by respondent no. 3. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)