Patna High Court
Awadhesh SinghversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The court ordered the university registrar to decide the petitioner's claim and, if it aligns with the precedent, to grant absorption and consequential benefits within eight weeks.
Summary
Awadhesh Singh, a retired assistant of S.B.A.N. College, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of his claim for absorption as a non‑teaching employee of Magadh University and for payment of salary arrears. He sought certiorari to quash the rejection order and mandamus directing the university and the State to notify his absorption under Section 4(1)(14) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, and to release his arrears. The petitioner relied on the decisions in Ram Chandra Singh v. State of Bihar (C.W.J.C. No. 8338 of 2018) and the earlier judgment in Gajendra Kumar Sharma’s claim, which had restored similar employees. The court noted the submissions and directed the Registrar of Magadh University to adjudicate the claim and, if the petitioner’s case is found analogous to Gajendra Kumar Sharma’s, to grant the same benefits within eight weeks. The writ petition was consequently disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to be absorbed as a non‑teaching employee of Magadh University under the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to salary arrears pending adjudication of his claim.
- Whether the earlier judgments in Ram Chandra Singh and Gajendra Kumar Sharma bind the present case.
Legislation cited
- Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 — s. 4(1)(14)
Subjects
- non‑teaching employee absorption
- mandamus
- certiorari
- salary arrears
- Bihar State Universities Act
- university staff regularisation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16497 of 2018
======================================================
Awadhesh Singh S/o Ram Sarup Singh Resident of Kurthadih, P.S. Kurtha,
District- Arwal, Retired Assistant of S.B.A.N. College, Darhetta Lari,
District- Arwal.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar and Ors
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Magadh University, Bodh Gaya through its Registrar.
4. The Vice Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya at Bodh Gaya.
5. The Registrar, Magadh University,Bodh Gaya at Bodh Gaya.
6. The Finance Officer, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya at Bodh Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Saroj Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Sandhya Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Smt. Binita Singh, SC-28
For the Magadh University : Ms. Prakritita Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Amarjeet, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 28-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The writ petition has been filed for the following
reliefs :-
i. For the issuance of a writ of certiorari
and/or any other appropriate writ/direction/order
for quashing the order dated 16.09.2015 in Claim
No. 174/2013 by which the claim of the petitioner
was rejected by the Hon'ble Justice S.B. Sinha
Commission.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16497 of 2018(4) dt.28-04-2026
2/5
ii. For the issuance of a writ of mandamus
and/or any other appropriate writ/direction/ order
commanding the respondents no. 2, 3 and 4 to
notify the absorption of the service of the petitioner
as an Assistant in S.B. A.N. College, Darhetta Lari,
in exercise of powers conferred under section 4(1)
(14) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 and
in compliance of the order dated 12.10.2004 of the
Hon'ble Supreme court in CA No. 6098/1997 and
in full conformity with the report of the Hon'ble
Justice Aggarwal Commission.
iii. For the issuance of a writ mandamus
and/or ay other appropriate writ/direction/order
commanding respondents no. 1 and 2 to release the
arrears of salary of the petitioner during the
pendency of the instant writ petition.
iv. For the issuance of any other appropriate
writ/direction/ order to ensure the grant of
consequential reliefs in the facts and circumstances
of the case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
claim petition of this petitioner, being Claim Petition No.
174/2013, was also adjudicated along with other claim petitions
being Claim Petition No. 172 of 2013 filed by Gajendra Kumar
Sharma v. the State of Bihar and Others. The claim of this
petitioner, along with Gajendra Kumar Sharma (supra) was
rejected and the rejection order passed by Justice S. B. Sinha
(Retired Commission) was put to challenge before this Hon’ble
Court in CWJC No. 25059 of 2018. Upon consideration of the
case of Gajendra Kumar Sharma (supra), the following orders
Patna High Court CWJC No.16497 of 2018(4) dt.28-04-2026
3/5
were passed.
“Both the counsels are ad adum that the law
is settled by the coordinate Bench in C.W.J.C. No.
8338 of 2018 ( Ram Chandra Singh Vrs. The State
of Bihar & Ors) decided on 06.08.2018 would
govern the present case also as the petitioner is
also an Assistant which is a non-teaching
category-
In Ram Chandra Singh (supra) the
coordinate Bench after taking into consideration
the law as settled by the Apex Court in the State of
Bihar & Ors. Vrs. Bihar Rajya M.S.ES.K.K.
Mahasangh & Ors. reported in (2005) 9 SCC 129
proceeded to hold as under:
"Considering the judgment in C.W.JC.
No. 17670 of 2017 the order of reviewing the
notification of absorption of the petitioner is
declared nullity, the respondents are directed
to restore the petitioner the status of
absorbed non-teaching employee with all
consequential benefits.
Final decision as to consequential
benefit must be taken by the University
within a period of four months from the date
of receipt/production of a copy of this order."
In the present case too, the petitioner read
that issue be treated as absolved on regularized
non-teaching employees and also be granted the
pay and allowances.
Keeping in view above, the respondents are
directed to restore the petitioner the status of
absorbed non-teaching employees with all
consequential benefits. The consequential benefits
shall be calculated and released by the University
within a period of four months from the date of
submission of a copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observations and
directions, this writ petition is disposed of.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.16497 of 2018(4) dt.28-04-2026
4/5
4. It is the case of the petitioner that his case is
squarely covered by the judgment and order passed in the case
of Gajendra Kumar Sharma (supra) and, therefore, the present
case may also be directed to be adjudicated in similar terms.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as
well as learned counsel for the University submit that the
authorities may be directed to adjudicate the case of the
petitioner and if, upon such adjudication, the petitioner’s case is
found to be covered by the ratio laid down in the case of
Gajendra Kumar Sharma (supra), whose claim was also rejected
along with that of the petitioner’s claim and is found to be at par
with Gajendra Kumar Sharma (supra), then the authorities of
the University may be directed to pass appropriate and
necessary orders in accordance with law.
6. Considering the submissions of the parties, this
Court finds it appropriate to direct the Registrar of Magadh
University to take a final decision with regard to the claim of the
petitioner. If, upon adjudication, it is found that the case of the
petitioner is at par with that of Gajendra Kumar Sharma (supra)
whose claim was also rejected along with the petitioner and that
the petitioner is also entitled to the same and similar relief, then,
after verifying the bona fide of the claim with reference to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16497 of 2018(4) dt.28-04-2026
5/5
official records as well as the findings recorded by the
Commission, a necessary decision shall be taken.
7. In the event that the petitioner is found similarly
situated, the corresponding benefits at par shall also be extended
in favour of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
sharun/-
U
Checking your session…