IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.2062 of 1996 ==================================================== BIHAR RAJYA MAHAVIDYALAY SHIKS - Petitioner/s(s) . Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS- Respondent/s(s) . ==================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s: Mr. ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY Mr. SANJAY KUMAR SINHA Mr. SUNIL KUMAR SINGH For the Respondent/s: Mr. (GP5) Mr. HARENDRA PRASAD Mr. /MRS.RENUKA SHARMA Mr. YUGAL KISHORE Mr. NARENDRA KR. SINGH Mr. PRABHU NATH RAI Mr. BINOD KRISHNA JHA Mr. AZFFAR HASAN Mr. KISHORE KR. MANDAL Mr. MUKESH KR. SINHA Mr. ABHIMANYU SHARMA (ASCCG) Mr. S.ALAMDHAR HUSSAIN Mr. UDAY CHAND PRASAD Mr. NIRMAL KUMAR Mr. KAUSHAL KUMAR JHA Mr. B.K.PRASAD Mr. BRAJ KISHORE PRASAD ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH DATE: 06-07-2011 ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY) 15. 6.7.2011 Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioners and on behalf of the respondents which include all the universities of the State of Bihar and also some universities of the State of Bihar and also some universities which are now in the State of Jharkhand. The main grievance of the petitioners was 2 against direction in a letter dated 15.1.1996 issued by the Secretary to the Govt. of Bihar in the Higher Education Department whereby while releasing a sum of Rs. 04 crores and 03 lac as first instalment of grants from the Government of India for payment of arrears on the basis of revised university grants commission scale of pay for a certain period, a direction was issued that the payment will not be made to petitioners who are also represented by petitioner no. 1, as they were working in colleges which had been made constituent in the last phase which is described as 4th phase. Much water has flown down the Ganges thereafter Since then a Committee known as Justice Agrawal Commission constituted by the Supreme Court has already made recommendations in respect of teachers of colleges made constituent in the 4th phase and those recommendations have been accepted by the Apex Court. The State clearly issued the impugned direction as an interim measure but now the rights of the constituent teachers have already crystallized and clearly 3 the dispute raised in this writ petition in the year 1996 appears to have become stale an infructuous. Apparently, for that reason nobody appears on behalf of the petitioners today, and same was the position when it was taken up for hearing on 14.9.2010. In the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed but without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners on the basis of Justice Agarwal Commission report for the colleges made constituent under the 4th phase. Mkc/- ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)