Satya Meenakshi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15718 of 2025 ====================================================== 1.

Satya Meenakshi, Wife of Bishwanath Gupta, Resident of Samridhi Kunj, Lane beside Mamta apartment, Shivpuri P.O. and P.S.- Phulwari, DistrictPatna. 2.

Ravi Shankar Prasad, Son of Bhagwat Prasad, Resident of Ward No.34, Sadar Chowk, P.S. Dehri on Son, District- Rohtas. 3.

Sanjiv Kumar, Son of Shiv Kumar Prasad, Resident of Ward No.20, Gulzar Bagh, P.S.- Madhepura, District- Madhepura.

4.

Ram Baran Kumar, Son of Rajendra Prasad, Resident of Baidpur, P.S.- Shambhuganj, District- Banka.

5.

Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Son of Laxman Prasad Gupta, Resident of Miscot, P.S. Matihani, District- East Champaran.

6.

Nand Kishore Prasad, Son of Ram Babu Prasad, Resident of Saw Kotha Road, Main Market, Bhawanipur, P.S. Sangrampur, District- East Champaran.

7.

Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Son of Arjun Prasad, Resident of Chand Chaura, P.S.- Vishnupad, District- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Director (Administration)-cum-Additional Secretary, Education Department, Bihar.

4.

The Director, State Education Research and Training Council, Mahendru, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Government Pleader 14 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 23-09-2025 Heard the parties.

2. At the outset, learned Advocate for the petitioner seeks permission to make the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar as party respondent no. 5.

3. Permission is accorded.

Patna High Court CWJC No.15718 of 2025(2) dt.23-09-2025 2/3

4. The petitioners who have been working as a Lecturer in the Government Training Colleges have approached this Court seeking a direction upon the concerned respondent to enhance the age of superannuation of the petitioners from 60 years to 65 years in parity with the identically situated Lecturers of NCERT / NCTE / AICTE and other Government institutions where the retirement age has already been extended upto 65 years.

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have also been appointed as Lecturers in Government Training Colleges and parting teachings to the students and their role is exactly identical to that of the Lecturers in the Government Polytechnic and Women's Polytechnic Institutes under the Department of Science & Technology, Government of Bihar, where the retirement age has been enhanced to 65 years vide Resolution No. 03/2012-2131 dated 14.09.2012. Other instances have also been shown where the Government has resolved to extend the date of superannuation upto 65 years, but, so far the petitioners are concerned, a discrimination has been caused, is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners. The entire facts have been brought to the knowledge of respondent authorities, but, till date, no decision has been taken; hence the present writ

Patna High Court CWJC No.15718 of 2025(2) dt.23-09-2025 3/3 petition.

6. Learned Advocate for the State submitted that since the petitioner has already represented before the concerned authorities, they shall look into the matter and take appropriate decision.

7. Having considered the nature of the grievance and the submissions advanced, the present writ petition stands disposed off with a liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna preferably within a period of four weeks from today.

8. In such case a representation is filed, it is expected that the same shall be considered and disposed off preferably within a further period of eight weeks, taking note of the submissions and the grounds raised in the writ petition, in accordance with law.

9. The present writ petition stands disposed off. (Harish Kumar, J) supratim/- U