IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9359 of 2006 RAJ NATH SINGH, SON OF LATE BABU RAM SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-NEW BIGRAHPUR, POLICE STATION-JAKKANPUR, DISTRICT-PATNA. ………………………………………………….........PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, HAVING HIS OFFICE AT OLD SECRETARIAT, POLICE STATION-SACHIVALAYA, DISTRICT-PATNA. 2. THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, HAVING HIS OFFICE AT VIKAS BHAWAN, PATNA. 3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, PUSA, SAMASTIPUR, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. 4. THE DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATION, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, PUSA, SAMASTIPUR, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. ………………………………………………..RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikash Chandra, Advocate. For the Respondents : M/s. D.K. Sinha, Senior Advocate Rajendra Agricultural and Chandra Mohan Singh, University. Advocate. -------- 4. 3.3.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the University. The petitioner was non-teaching staff of the Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur working on the post of Clerk in the Agricultural Research Institute, 2 Lohiya Nagar. The petitioner retired from service on 30.4.2006. However, he has filed this writ application with a prayer that the retirement of his age should also be enhanced from 60 years to 62 years, as has been done with regard to the teaching staffs. It appears that the petitioner has filed this writ application on 2.8. 2006 after his retirement from service on 30.4.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court towards the letter dated 29.4.2006 as contained in Annexure-‘3’ to the writ application, whereby the retirement age of the teachers of the University has been enhanced to 62 years from 60 years. However, the same clarifies that the non- teaching employee of the University would continue to retire at the age of 60 years without any scope of further extension of service. Learned counsel submits that subsequently the aforesaid notification has been modified and the retirement age of the non-teaching employee has also been enhanced to 62 years from 60 years on 18.1.2007. Thus, it is contended that being a beneficial notification, the benefit thereof should be extended to the petitioner also. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 3 University. Learned counsel appearing for the University drew attention of this Court towards the decision dated 8.10.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. No.8892 of 2006 and another analogous matter (Annexure-‘A’ to the counter affidavit). It is submitted that the learned Single Judge of this Court has already considered this aspect of the matter and has dismissed those writ applications holding that unless and until the statute has been made specifically retrospective, the same cannot be held to have a retrospective effect. In the above view of the matter, since, admittedly, the amendment had come on 18.1.2007 and the petitioner had already retired on 30.4.2006, concurring with the decision rendered in the aforesaid C.W.J.C. No. 8892 of 2006 and another analogous matter, it is held that the amendment in the notification as aforesaid cannot be held to have a retrospective effect. As a result, this writ application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. P.S. ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)