IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10700 of 2006 AWADHESH KUMAR SINGH, son of Late Sukhnandan Singh, resident of village- Singhipur,P.O. & P.S.- Nayagaon, District- Saran. …Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary-cum- Commissioner, Higher Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Additional Secretary, Human Resources Development (Higher Education), Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Director, Higher Education, Department, Patna. 5. Magadh University, Bodh Gaya through its Registrar. 6. The Vice-Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. … Respondents. ----------- 2. 03.11.2010 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the University as with regard to the following prayer; “1. That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writs/directions commanding the respondents to re- designate the petitioner as demonstrator w.e.f 26.6.1981 and thereafter, grant him all consequential benefits in demonstrator, pay scale including payment of arrear of salary, consequential benefits and other benefits contained in the letter dated 14.6.2006 and also grant any other reliefs for which petitioner is found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.” and taking into account that the person like the petitioner who despite their retirement have been given the benefit of re-designation on the post of Demonstrator in all other universities, this Court would not find the reason of 2 retirement being an impediment of his being re-designated on the post of Demonstrator. If the judgment of the Apex Court dated 22.7.2002 was not implemented for the period of four years and if the petitioner had retired in between i.e. 22.7.2002, he cannot be denied such benefit of re- designation on the post of demonstrator only on account of his retirement on 28.2.2003. The second ground taken in the counter affidavit as with regard to lack of sanction posts also does not seem to be correct. The petitioner and four others including one Jagdish Pd. Yadav were promoted on the post of Laboratory Incharge by common order dated 27th May 1981 as contained in Annexure-2 and the order of the learned single Judge itself had mentioned that the same was in anticipation of the sanctioned post of the State Government on the basis of staffing pattern. The University subsequently on 5.12.2006 had passed the order of re-designation of five Laboratory Tech./Laboratory Incharge including Jagdish Pd. Yadav who also was promoted along with the petitioner on 27th May 1981 in anticipation of approval of the post by the State Government. There is nothing to show that the 3 Government had given sanction to the post of Laboratory Incharge in the department of Physics for Jagdish Pd. Yadav and it did not do so for the petitioner who was promoted on the post of Laboratory Incharge in the department of Chemistry. The plea however is not free of doubt as the pleadings are inadequate on this issue. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the Vice-Chancellor of the University to reconsider the case of the petitioner for his re-designation on the post of Demonstrator and if it is found that the petitioner was eligible in all respects as on the date of his retirement and further that other persons promoted with the petitioner on the post of Laboratory Incharge have been given such benefit of re-designation on the post of Demonstrator, the petitioner will also be given the same benefit. In the event, the Vice-Chancellor of the University would find the petitioner not eligible for such re-designation on the post of Demonstrator solely due to want of sanction of posts, he will be under obligation to set out the facts relating to it and make recommendation to the State Government as with regard to seeking sanction of posts as per staffing pattern quoting the order which was 4 subsequently passed by the State Government by the post of Laboratory Incharge in Physics Department of Jagdish Pd. Yadav was sanctioned and the post of Laboratory Incharge for the petitioner in the department of Chemistry was rejected. The University being a model employer has to act fairly in the matter of giving benefit which has also become available to each and every person who was working as on the date of judgment of the Apex Court. In order to expedite the matter, this Court would also give liberty to the petitioner to file his self-contained representation to the Vice-Chancellor of the University wherein he may also produce the supporting documents and the Vice-Chancellor of the University will be under obligation to dispose of the same by a reasoned order. It goes without saying that if the petitioner is found entitled for such re-designation on the post of Demonstrator, he would be given all other benefits which had been extended to any other employee of the College who too has been given benefit of re-designation on the post of Demonstrator. Such exercise must be completed within a period of six months from the date of filing of petitioner’s representation along with a copy of this order. 5 With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)