Eligibility for absorption and pay revisions requires documented qualifications and adherence to procedural norms; claims without proper recommendations or evidence are unvalid.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner primarily challenging the order dated 18.03.2015 passed by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) Commission by reason of which the claim of the petitioner for correction of date of his absorption on the post of ‘Lecturer’ in the University has been rejected and further for grant of 5th and 6th pay revision which the petitioner claims to be entitled.

The petitioner further has prayed for quashing of the order dated 09.05.2015, whereby the petition preferred by the petitioner for recalling the order dated 18.03.2015 was rejected.

The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the other consecutive order dated 18.12.2015, passed by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) Commission arising out of other petition for recalling the aforesaid order dated 18.03.2015 on the ground of retirement of one ‘Shambhu Nath Mishra’ which was also rejected.

Lastly, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to correct the date of absorption as well as grant benefits of 5th and 6th pay revision.

3. Earlier also, one writ petition being W.P.(S) no. 4197/2009 was filed by the petitioner, which stand dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 03.01.2018. Issues as were raised in the earlier writ petition i.e. W.P.(S) no. 4197/2009 was for correction of petitioner’s date of absorption as well as to grant the benefits of 5th and 6th pay revision. However, after knowing about ongoing Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) Commission considering the cases of University Teachers, which was earlier subject to verification by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.C. Agrawal (Retd.) Commission, the petitioner withdraws his writ to approach the Commission for redressal of his grievance.

4. Necessary facts related to the petitioner as per the pleadings is that he was appointed by the Governing Body in its meeting dated 07.10.1985 on the post of Lecturer in the Department of Sanskrit in Markham College of Commerce, Hazaribagh. Appointment letter was issued on 07.10.1985 and accordingly the petitioner joined on 07.10.1985 (Annexure-1 series of the writ petition). The siad College was one of the colleges, which by the decision of the then State of Bihar of 1986 was taken over as constituent unit of the University. The College was taken over by the Government vide its decision dated 19.08.1986 and thereafter, agreement was entered into between the College, Management & employee Associations of the University under section 4(1)(14) of the Bihar Universities Act, 1976.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made following submissions:

a) Disputes regarding sanctioned posts and validity of staff appointments in certain colleges led to vigilance inquiries, prompting employees to form the Bihar Rajya Mahavidyalaya Shikshak and Shikshakettar Karmchari Kalyan Mahasangh, which filed C.W.J.C. No. 4021/1995 before the Patna High Court seeking regularisation of services of teachers of 4th phase colleges.

b) The Patna High Court directed Universities to consider regularisation under Section 4(14) of the Bihar Universities Act, 1976, which was challenged by the State before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, leading to the constitution of the Justice S.C. Agrawal Commission to examine disputes relating to absorption of employees.

c) The Agrawal Commission report included the petitioner’s name in Annexure III-A and Annexure IV-A, showing that he was working prior to the cut-off date against a recommended post, following which the Supreme Court accepted the report and directed Universities to pass