IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6689 of 2011 ANANT MOHAN JHA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, SON OF LATE RAS MOHAN JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – JEHANPUR, P.S. – JOKIHAT, DISTRICT – ARARIA. ……………. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE B.N.MANDAL UNIVERSITY, MADHEPURA, THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, B.N. MANDAL UNIVERSITY, MADHEPURA. 3. THE PRO VICE-CHANCELLOR, B.N. MANDAL UNIVERSITY, MADHEPURA. 4. THE FINANCE OFFICER, B.N. MANDAL UNIVERSITY, MADHEPURA. 5. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 6. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. ………. RESPONDENTS ----------- 2 18.04.2011 Heard Sri Purushottam Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hemendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4/B.N. Mandal University and Sri Naresh Prasad, learned A.C. to Standing Counsel No. 20, appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 5 & 6/State. The petitioner who retired with effect from 30.04.2002 as ‘Reader’, Department of Economics from Araria College, Araria under B.N. Mandal 2 University, Madhepura has prayed for directing the respondents to revise and re-fix his pension with effect from 01.01.2006 notionally, followed with its actual payment with effect from 01.04.2007 as per State Government Resolution No. 820 dated 23.09.2009. The petitioner has further prayed that he may be granted relief in terms of order dated 03.12.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3616 of 2010 (Dr. Himanshu Bhushan Vs Tilka Manjhi University & Ors.) and other connected writ petitions. Sri Hemendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents/ University has raised serious objection on the point of filing of the present writ petition. It was further submitted that earlier for retirement benefit the petitioner had approached this court vide C.W.J.C. No. 8014 of 2003 which stood disposed of on 11.01.2008. Learned counsel for the University has further pointed out that in paragraph no. 5 of writ 3 petition itself the petitioner has admitted that against the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8014 of 2003 the petitioner filed an appeal vide L.P.A. No. 389 of 2008 which stood dismissed due to non- prosecution, and thereafter, its restoration too was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner filed restoration petition vide M.J.C. No. 3309 of 2008 which was also rejected, and again thereafter, he filed restoration for restoration of M.J.C. No. 3309 of 2008 vide M.J.C. No. 1616 of 2011 which is pending. It was submitted by Sri Hemendra Prasad Singh that since for retirement benefit the petitioner had already approached this court he may not be entitled to maintain the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner while refuting the submission of learned counsel for the University submits that in the present writ petition the relief which has been sought for was not at all available in the earlier writ petition. It was submitted that in the present writ petition prayer has been 4 made for re-fixation of his pension in view of State Govt. Resolution No. 820 dated 23.09.2009. After hearing the parties the court is of the opinion that for revision of the pension there was no cause available to the petitioner on earlier occasion since the Resolution of the State Govt. came into effect from 23.09.2009, whereas, the writ petition was filed in the year 2003 which was rejected. The court is of the opinion that since the issue regarding revision of pension in the light of State Govt. Resolution No. 820 dated 23.09.2009 so far as University Lecturer/Professor are concerned has already been settled by this court in C.W.J.C. No. 3616 of 2010 (Dr. Himanshu Bhushan Vs Tilka Manjhi University & Ors.) and other connected writ petition vide its order dated 03.12.2010, the court is of the opinion that prayer for re-fixation of pension in view of State Govt. Resolution No. 820 dated 23.09.2009 can not be refused. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed in terms of order dated 03.12.2010 passed 5 in C.W.J.C. No. 3616 of 2010 (Dr. Himanshu Bhushan Vs. Tilka Manjhi University & Ors.) and another analogous cases. Praful (Rakesh Kumar, J.)