Prof. Rajendra Narayan Poddar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13753 of 2017 ====================================================== Prof. Rajendra Narayan Poddar, S/o Late Ram Khelawan Poddar, Resident of Mogalkuan Poddar Niwas P.S.- Sohsarai, District- Nalanda retired as University Professor in the Subject of Commerce from Kishan College, Sohsarai, Biharsharif, Nalanda, under Magadh University, Bodhgaya. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Director, Higher Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Vice Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya.

4. The Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya.

5. The Finance Officer, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya.

6. The Principal, Kishan College, Sohsarai, Biharsarif, Nalanda. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh For the Respondent/s : Neetu Jha, AC to GA-12 For the University : Mr. Ritesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 13-12-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the University and State. The grievance of the petitioner is non-consideration of his case for grant of increment for Ph.D. degree. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that submits that the issue in question have been decided by the judgment of this court in LPA No. 269 of 2016. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that claim of the petitioner for grant of increment for Ph.D. degree is covered by decision of this court in LPA No. 269 of 2016 vide

Patna High Court CWJC No.13753 of 2017 (2) dt.13-12-2017 2/2 oral order dated 27.7.2017, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent-University to examine the case of the petitioner in the light of the decision in LPA No. 269 of 2016 and if the case of the petitioner is covered by decision of the court in LPA No. 269 of 2016, the same benefit will be extended to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

With the aforesaid, the writ application stands disposed of.

It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case. It is for the University to examine whether the case of the petitioner is similar to the case of the petitioner decided in LPA No. 269 of 2016.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Ravi/- U