JUDGMENT : Deepak Roshan, J. Heard learned counsel or the parties. 1. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- (a) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, including Writ of Mandamus, directing and commanding upon the respondents, particularly Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, to forthwith grant approval of the pay scale of the petitioner in University Grant Commission (for short ‘UGC’) revised pay scale in the grade of Lecturer being pay-scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- pursuant to the 5 th Pay Revision Committee’s Report with effect from 1.1.1996, specially because the service of the Petitioner has been absorbed pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the Ranchi University and also because Ranchi University had already made recommendation for grant of approval of the revised pay-scale of the Petitioner; (b) For issuance of further appropriate writ, order or direction, including the Writ of Mandamus, directing and commanding upon the respondents to consequently approve and pay the salary to the petitioner in the 6 th Revised U.G.C. Pay Scale with effect from the date when persons similarly situated to that of the Petitioner has been given the benefit of 6 th Revised U.G.C. Pay Scale; (c) For issuance of further appropriate writ, order or direction, including the writ of mandamus, directing and commanding upon the Respondent-university to pay arrears of salary to the petitioner according to revised pay scale along with interest @ 18% per annum; (d) For issuance of further appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the respondents not arbitrarily discriminate the petitioner from other similarly situated persons, whose services were absorbed in the same college in which the Petitioner is working; and (e) For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is legally entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case. (f) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing/ setting aside the Notification bearing Memo No. B/187/18 dated 23.03.2018 (Annexure- 18) whereby absorption of services of the petitioner has been stayed by the Respondent-Ranchi University. (g) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing the Notification bearing Memo No. B/186/18 dated 23.03.2018 (Annexure-19) services of Bhagesh Chandra Verma and Smt. Nirmala Prasad have been absorbed by Respondent-Ranchi University on the post of Lecturer in the Subject of Political Science. (g) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing the Notification bearing Memo No. B/186/18 dated 23.03.2018 (Annexure-19) services of Bhagesh Chandra Verma and Smt. Nirmala Prasad have been absorbed by Respondent-Ranchi University on the post of Lecturer in the Subject of Political Science. (h) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Certiorari, for quashing/ setting aside the order dated 28.02.2015 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) Commission, wherein said Commission has been pleased to allow the claim of Bagesh Chandra Verma (Respondent No.4) and has directed his service to be absorbed from the date of his joining i.e. 02.07.1985, and, further direction has been issued to absorb the services of Smt. Nirmala Prasad (Respondent No.5) on the post which has fallen vacant due to leaving of the College by Dr. S.N. Thakur with effect from30.11.1996." FACTUAL MATRIX 2. Petitioner, pursuant to an advertisement issued by Governing Body of Mandar College, Mandar, was appointed on the post of Lecturer in Political Science with effect from 03.03.1983 and he submitted his joining on the said post on 08.03.1983. 3. Erstwhile State of Bihar took a decision for converting Mandar College into Constituent College of Ranchi University and accordingly, under an agreement pursuant to letter issued by Government of Bihar, said College was converted into constituent college of Ranchi University. 4. It is an admitted fact that Petitioner was working in aforesaid College against recommended post much prior to cut-off date and, in terms of the agreement, he was entitled for absorption under Ranchi University. However, at the relevant point of time, several colleges were converted into constituent colleges and dispute arose regarding absorption of one or the other teachers in converted constituent colleges and, accordingly, State of Bihar referred the said dispute to 5-Member Committee consisting of Vice Chancellors of different Universities. The said High Level Committee identified the teachers working against sanctioned/recommended post in taken-over constituent colleges and vide Letter No. 38-C and 181-C dated 01.02.1988 and 18.12.1989, respectively, State of Bihar accepted said recommendations and directed the respective Universities to absorb services of the teachers mentioned in the List. Admittedly, name of Petitioner is included in the said List for absorption in Subject-Political Science for Mandar College, Mandar. Admittedly, name of Petitioner is included in the said List for absorption in Subject-Political Science for Mandar College, Mandar. However, dispute arose regarding absorption of one or the other teachers and various writ petitions were filed before the Patna High Court, and, the Patna High Court, vide Judgment in C.W.J.C. No. 4021 of 1995 dated 31.01.1997, in concluding portion vide Para-26, observed as under :- “ In that view of the matter, the controversies have not reached a finality as contemplated under Section 4(1)(14) of the Act. This Court, therefore, directed the universities concerned to take steps under sub-section (14) of Section 4(1) of the said Act in respect of regularization of the services of the teachers of the colleges which have become constituent colleges of the different universities in the fourth phase. Even though the universities have been made parties including the Chancellors of the said universities, and they have been served with notice, but nobody appeared on behalf of the universities or on behalf of the Chancellors nor ay affidavit has been filed. In that view of the matter, this Court directs the universities who are parties of this proceeding to take steps in accordance with the communication of the State Government which is at Annexure-5 of the writ application in the light of the observation made in this judgment and in accordance with the provisions of Section 4(1)(14) of the said Act within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is, however, made clear that till such steps are taken by the respective universities, the status quo as existing today will continue. With the aforesaid direction this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.” 5. Reference of Annexure-5 in aforesaid direction of the Patna High Court was the letter written by State of Bihar, being Letter No. 38-C dated 01.02.1988 and Letter No. 181-C dated 18.12.1989. Thus, in substance, the Patna High Court directed the Universities to take steps of absorption of teachers identified in aforesaid letters issued by State Government in newly converted constituent colleges. 6. Consequent upon the order passed by the Patna High Court, service of Petitioner was regularized/absorbed by Ranchi University vide Memo No. 2937 dated 25.06.1998 with effect from the date when Petitioner obtained requisite qualification in requisite percentage of marks. 6. Consequent upon the order passed by the Patna High Court, service of Petitioner was regularized/absorbed by Ranchi University vide Memo No. 2937 dated 25.06.1998 with effect from the date when Petitioner obtained requisite qualification in requisite percentage of marks. Judgment of the Patna High Court was challenged before Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 6098 of 1997, and, Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its order dated 12.10.2001 was pleased to appoint a One-Man Enquiry Commission, namely, Justice (Retd.) S.C. Agrawal Commission in order to decide the entire controversy in dispute. The terms of reference which was required to be answered by One-Man Commission were as under:- “i. How many sanctioned posts of teachers and non-teaching employees were there in the forty colleges which were converted into constituent colleges pursuant to the sanctioned letter dated 19 th August, 1986 of the State of Bihar? ii. How many proposals with regards to creation of posts for teachers and non-teaching employees had been submitted to the Educational Department of the State of Bihar or University before 30 th April, 1986, the cut off dated mentioned in Appendix Kha (Page 208 of SLP) with respect to 36 colleges converted into the constituent colleges as per government letter dated 19 th August, 1986? iii. How many teachers and non-teaching employees seeking absorption in the constituent colleges were not appointed through the selection made by the College Service Commission/University Service Commission and whether they possess the basic qualification prescribed by the Act and the Statute? This exercise will be without prejudice to the contention of the respondents that Section 57(A) is not applicable in such selections as has been held by the High Court in the judgment? iv. How many teachers and non-teaching employees would be entitled to absorption on the basis of the government letter dated 19 th August, 1986 and Appendix-Kha and the agreement entered into between the University concerned and the constituent colleges under Section 4(1)(14) of the State University Act, 1976 and other orders of the government?” 7. Justice S.C. Agrawal Commission submitted its report before Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, said Commission while determining and examining validity of appointment of one or other teachers had not taken into consideration names of the teachers which were already mentioned in Letter Nos. Justice S.C. Agrawal Commission submitted its report before Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, said Commission while determining and examining validity of appointment of one or other teachers had not taken into consideration names of the teachers which were already mentioned in Letter Nos. 38-C and 181-C in view of the fact that State Government itself directed for absorption of the employees mentioned in the said list. Report of Justice S.C. Agrawal Commission was approved by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its Judgment rendered in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh, reported in (2005) 9 SCC 129 . 8. Consequent upon Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, Respondent-Ranchi University again issued Notifications dated 09.06.2005 and 07.03.2009 absorbing services of the Petitioner as Lecturer for the subject Political Science in Mandar College, Mandar. 9. It is an admitted fact that Petitioner, since the date of his initial appointment, was discharging his duties in Mandar College, Mandar, but, benefit of pay revision in terms of U.G.C. pay-scale of Lecturers in 4 th , 5 th and 6 th pay-scale was not being extended to Petitioner despite several recommendations in that regard made by Respondent-Ranchi University. It is under those circumstances, Petitioner initially filed a writ petition primarily praying therein for a direction upon Respondent-State of Jharkhand to approve revised pay-scale of Petitioner in 5 th and 6 th revised U.G.C. pay-scale. However, during pendency of instant writ petition, certain disputes pertaining to absorption of one or the other employees in bifurcated State of Bihar travelled up to Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017 and analogous cases (Krishna Nand Yadav & Ors. v. Magadh University & Ors.), and a One-man Commission of Justice (Retd.) S.B. Sinha was appointed with respect to adjudication of claims of one or the other persons whose cases were not earlier considered by concerned University for their absorption. 10. Before Hon’ble Justice S.B. Sinha Commission, three separate claim petitions were filed by one Bhagesh Chandra Verma (Respondent No.4), Nirmala Prasad (Respondent No.5) and one Asghari Begum for their absorption in services on the post of Lecturer in Department of Political Science under Mandar College, Mandar. 11. Before Justice S.B. Sinha Commission, although Respondent- Ranchi University appeared but failed to bring to the notice of said Commission that services of Petitioner were already absorbed by Respondent-Ranchi University earlier. 11. Before Justice S.B. Sinha Commission, although Respondent- Ranchi University appeared but failed to bring to the notice of said Commission that services of Petitioner were already absorbed by Respondent-Ranchi University earlier. It was stated by Bhagesh Chandra Verma (Respondent No.4) that although he was appointed on 02.07.1985 but his services have been absorbed by Respondent-Ranchi University only with effect from 30.11.1996 i.e. the date when an already absorbed employee Dr. S.N. Thakur left the college. Further, Smt. Nirmala Prasad along with Asghari Begum also contended that they were entitled for absorption of their services. Justice S.B. Sinha Commission, vide its order dated 28.02.2015, was pleased to allow the claim of Bhagesh Chandra Verma and directed his services to be absorbed from the date of joining on the post i.e. on 02.07.1985 and further direction was issued to absorb the services of Smt. Nirmala Prasad on the post which had fallen vacant due to leaving of the college by Dr. S.N. Pathak on 30.11.1996. 12. Since aforesaid order was passed by Justice S.B. Sinha Commission without taking into consideration the fact that Petitioner was already working on 6 th available recommended/sanctioned post in Mandar College, Mandar; Respondent-Ranchi University filed a petition before Justice S.B. Sinha Commission for recall of order dated 28.02.2015 and in the said petition filed by Ranchi University, notices were issued to Petitioner along with Bhagesh Chandra Verma and Smt. Nirmala Prasad. However, ultimately, Justice S.B. Sinha Commission passed order dated 29.10.2015 wherein claim of Respondent-Ranchi University was not entertained. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as it was brought to the notice of the Commission that Petitioner already filed a writ petition before this Hon’ble Court (instant writ petition) and, accordingly, the Commission directed the Petitioner to implead Bhagesh Chandra Verma and Nirmala Prasad in the instant writ petition and further observed that order dated 29.10.2015 passed by the Commission would be ultimately subject matter of decision of the High Court of Jharkhand. 13. Consequent upon aforesaid order passed by Justice S.B. Sinha Commission, Petitioner filed amendment petition for impleadment of aforesaid two persons. 13. Consequent upon aforesaid order passed by Justice S.B. Sinha Commission, Petitioner filed amendment petition for impleadment of aforesaid two persons. However, during pendency of the writ petition, Respondent-Ranchi University passed order keeping absorption of Petitioner in abeyance vide Notification dated 23.03.2018 contained in Memo No. B/187/18 dated 23.03.2018 and further passed order absorbing services of Bhagesh Chandra Verma from the date of taking over of Mandar College as a constituent college and also absorbed services of Nirmala Prasad with effect from 30.11.1996. Both the aforesaid orders were challenged by Petitioner by filing amendment application, which was allowed by this Court. SUBMISSIOINS OF PARTIES 14. The counsel appearing for Petitioner vehemently submitted that Petitioner is, admittedly, senior to Bhagesh Chandra Verma and Nirmala Prasad and was working in Mandar College, Mandar with effect from 08.03.1983 and there was no dispute in respect of the said fact and it is for the said reason that High Level Screening Committee, appointed by State of Bihar itself, directed Ranchi University vide Notification contained in Letter No. 38-C dated 01.02.1988 and Letter No. 181-C dated 18.12.1989 to absorb services of Petitioner. 15. While placing reliance upon Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh (supra), particularly, paras 60 and 62 thereof, it was submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court specifically noticed that validity and authentication of two orders of the State Government were not questioned before High Court and their validity were only questioned by employees of the converted college before Justice S.C. Agrawal Commission, which declined to go into validity of said letters and it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that the two orders by which teachers were to be appointed attained finality and thus objection of State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand was rejected by Hon’ble Supreme Court. 16. It was submitted that, admittedly, name of Petitioner appeared in the said letter and it is because of the said reason, absorption orders were passed by Ranchi University and said absorption orders already attained finality in view of the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, only due to mistake of Respondent-Ranchi University, an issue which was already decided up to Hon’ble Supreme Court, was reopened before Justice S.B. Sinha Commission, as Respondent-Ranchi University did not bring to the notice of Justice S.B. Sinha Commission the fact regarding absorption of Petitioner. 17. However, only due to mistake of Respondent-Ranchi University, an issue which was already decided up to Hon’ble Supreme Court, was reopened before Justice S.B. Sinha Commission, as Respondent-Ranchi University did not bring to the notice of Justice S.B. Sinha Commission the fact regarding absorption of Petitioner. 17. It was vehemently submitted by Petitioner that subsequent order passed by Justice S.B. Sinha Commission dated 29.10.2015 clearly held that its earlier decision dated 28.02.2015 would be subject matter of pending writ petition filed by Petitioner, but despite the said fact, Respondent-Ranchi University passed impugned Notifications both dated 23.03.2018, wherein absorption of Petitioner was stayed and further order was passed for shifting the date of absorption of Bhagesh Chandra Verma and for absorbing the services of Nirmala Prasad, which is wholly incorrect and even contrary to the decision in the case of Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh (supra), as the issue of absorption of Petitioner attained finality. 18. It was submitted that Petitioner continuously worked in Mandar College from the year 1983 till the date of his superannuation i.e. 30.04.2018 and just one month prior to his superannuation, order of staying of absorption of Petitioner was passed, which has an effect of denying all post retiral benefits to Petitioner. It was, therefore, submitted that impugned order contained in Memo No. B/187/18 dated 23.03.2018 may be quashed and Respondent-State of Jharkhand and Respondent- Ranchi University may be directed to release the post retiral benefit to Petitioner after revising pay-scale as per 5 th , 6 th and 7 th U.G.C. pay-scale. 19. During arguments, Petitioner submitted that although Petitioner specifically challenged the Notification of absorption of services of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, but Petitioner is mainly concerned with Notification by which his absorption was stayed having consequential effect upon payment of retiral benefits to Petitioner. Reliance was placed upon a decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Uday Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors, being W.P.(S) No. 2985 of 2018, vide Judgment dated 10.11.2023, wherein under similar circumstances, it was held that Petitioner would be entitled for the benefit of pay-fixation and retirement benefit in revised pay-scale. Reliance was placed upon a decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Uday Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors, being W.P.(S) No. 2985 of 2018, vide Judgment dated 10.11.2023, wherein under similar circumstances, it was held that Petitioner would be entitled for the benefit of pay-fixation and retirement benefit in revised pay-scale. In the said Judgment, it was further held that only because of fault of Ranchi University, services of other persons were also absorbed cannot be disturbed, and, accordingly, it was ordered that services of other persons shall not be disturbed by this Court. However, Petitioner submitted that in any event, Petitioner is senior to private Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and services of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 could not have been absorbed in supersession to absorption of Petitioner and prayed that their absorption orders may be set aside in the event those absorption orders would adversely affect the claim of retiral benefit of Petitioner. 20. Mr. Anup Kumar Mehta, appeared for Respondent No.3, did not dispute the facts narrated hereinabove and fairly submitted that it is true that services of Petitioner were earlier absorbed in 6 th recommended/sanctioned post and said fact could not be brought to the notice of Justice S.B. Sinha Commission, because of which order was passed for absorption of services of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. It was submitted that Respondent-University, realizing the said mistake, filed recall petition before Justice S.B. Sinha Commission, but said recall petition was disposed of giving liberty to Petitioner to raise his grievances in present writ petition and, it is under those circumstances, Respondent-Ranchi University passed order for staying of absorption of services of Petitioner and absorbing the services of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 21. Mr. Mehta lastly submitted that if this Court, ultimately, is of the opinion that Petitioner is entitled for revision of his pay-scale and payment of retiral benefits, this Court may direct the State of Jharkhand to sanction fund and disburse the same in favour of Respondent-Ranchi University so that post retiral benefits can be paid to Petitioner. 22. 21. Mr. Mehta lastly submitted that if this Court, ultimately, is of the opinion that Petitioner is entitled for revision of his pay-scale and payment of retiral benefits, this Court may direct the State of Jharkhand to sanction fund and disburse the same in favour of Respondent-Ranchi University so that post retiral benefits can be paid to Petitioner. 22. Respondent No.4 appeared and filed his Counter Affidavit and tried to raise dispute regarding absorption of services of Petitioner by contending, inter alia, that Respondent No.4 was having requisite eligibility criteria for being appointed on the post of Lecturer on the date of his initial appointment i.e. 02.07.1985, whereas Petitioner, who was earlier appointed in the year 1983, had subsequently obtained the eligible marks for his absorption in the year 1988 and, therefore, in substance, Respondent No.4 is senior to Petitioner, and, rightly order has been passed by Respondent-Ranchi University absorbing services of Respondent No.4 with effect from the date of his initial joining. 23. Nobody appeared on behalf of Respondent No.5-Nirmala Prasad. However, it was submitted by Respondent No.4 that Petitioner already superannuated from service in April, 2018 and Respondent No. 4 superannuated from service in December 2024 and, further, Respondent No.5 superannuated from service in May, 2024. FINDINGS 24. Facts stated hereinabove are not in dispute and the Petitioner was, admittedly, appointed on 03.03.1983 on the post of Lecturer in Political Science, in Mandar College, Mandar, and, after taking over of the said College as constituent college in view of Notifications issued by erstwhile State of Bihar, vide Notification Nos. 38-C and 181-C dated 01.02.1988 and 18.12.1989 respectively and Judgment of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4021 of 1995 dated 31.01.1997, service of Petitioner was initially absorbed vide Memo No. 2937 dated 25.06.1998 and, further, pursuant to Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh (supra), again Notifications were issued on 09.06.2005 and 07.03.2009 by Respondent-Ranchi University absorbing services of Petitioner as Lecturer in Political Science in Mandar College, Mandar. In the case of Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh (supra), validity and authenticity of the two orders dated 01.02.1988 and 18.12.1989 was sought to be questioned and Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide Paragraphs 60 to 64, held as under:- “60. In the case of Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh (supra), validity and authenticity of the two orders dated 01.02.1988 and 18.12.1989 was sought to be questioned and Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide Paragraphs 60 to 64, held as under:- “60. The validity and authenticity of the two orders dated 01.02.1988 and 18.12.1989 of the State Government were not questioned before the High Court in the writ petition filed by the employees of the converted constituent colleges. Question on their validity was raised only before the one-member Enquiry Commission of Shri Justice S.C. Agrawal (Retd.). On the question of validity of the order dated 01.02.1988, the Enquiry Commission delved into the notings in the government files and found that the Education Minister had recorded in one of the files that the Cabinet in its meeting held on 22.6.1988 had authorized the Chief Minister to take a decision in that regard. According to the Commission, the order dated 1.2.1988 is a duly authorized order of the State Government and this fact is evident from the subsequent Resolution No. 307 dated 8.3.1988, which is a duly authenticated order issued in the name of the Governor of Bihar. The subsequent resolution formally issued in the name of the Governor is a sequel to the order dated 1.2.1988 and does not disturb it. 61. So far as the order dated 18.12.1989 of the State Government directing absorption of employees against posts sanctioned and recommended by the Committee was concerned, the Commission did not go into that question stating that it was the subject-matter for decision before this Court in the present pending appeal. 62. Since the validity and authenticity of the two orders dated 1.2.1988 and 18.12.1989 were not raised before the High Court and were raised for the first time before the Commission, we decline to go into them. The joint stand taken on behalf of the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand before this Court, deserves to be rejected. 63. That apart, the Commission has taken note of the fact that the order dated 1.2.1988 was followed by formal Resolution No. 307 dated 8.3.1988 which was a duly authenticated order issued in the name of the Governor of Bihar and did not disturb the order dated 1.2.1988. 63. That apart, the Commission has taken note of the fact that the order dated 1.2.1988 was followed by formal Resolution No. 307 dated 8.3.1988 which was a duly authenticated order issued in the name of the Governor of Bihar and did not disturb the order dated 1.2.1988. It is a resolution formally taken and expressed in the name of the Government of Bihar in accordance with Article 166 of the Constitution to give effect to the order made on 1.2.1988. 64. So far as the order dated 18.12.1989 is concerned, the State being the author of that decision, merely because it is formally not expressed in the name of the Governor in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution, the State itself cannot be allowed to resile or go back on that decision. Mere change of the elected Government does not justify dishonoring the decisions of previous elected Government. If at all the two decisions contained in the orders dated 1.2.1988 and 18.12.1989 were not acceptable to the newly elected Government, it was open to it to withdraw or rescind the same formally. In the absence of such withdrawal or rescission of the two orders dated 1.2.1988 and 18.12.1989, it is not open to the State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand (which has been created after reorganization of the State of Bihar) to contend that those decisions do not bind them.” 25. There is no dispute that the name of the Petitioner was mentioned in aforesaid List and since Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the objection raised regarding validity and authenticity of said letter, services of Petitioner were again absorbed by Respondent-Ranchi University. 26. Further, as stated above, another Commission was appointed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, i.e., Justice S.B. Sinha Commission, wherein cases of absorption of services of only those teachers were subject matter of consideration whose cases were not earlier considered for absorption. It is at this stage that claim petitions were filed by Respondent Nos. 26. Further, as stated above, another Commission was appointed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, i.e., Justice S.B. Sinha Commission, wherein cases of absorption of services of only those teachers were subject matter of consideration whose cases were not earlier considered for absorption. It is at this stage that claim petitions were filed by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and one Asghari Begum putting forth their claim for absorption of their services in Mandar College, and, as already noted above, although Respondent-Ranchi University appeared before said Commission, but did not bring to the notice of said Commission that Petitioner’s service was already absorbed and, thus, Commission proceeded on the basis that one post in Mandar College was vacant and another post was subsequently fallen vacant due to an absorbed employee leaving the College i.e. Dr. S.N. Thakur. It is in this background; order was passed by S.B. Sinha Commission directing absorption of services of Bhagesh Chandra Verma from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 02.07.1985. Further, services of Nirmala Prasad were directed to be absorbed with effect from the date of post having fallen vacant i.e. 30.11.1996. Respondent-Ranchi University immediately realized its mistake and approached the Commission for recall of earlier order, but, the Commission, after noticing the fact that Petitioner had already filed writ petition, vide order dated 29.10.2015, did not entertain the petition filed by Respondent-Ranchi University by observing, inter alia, that Writ Petitioner may implead Bhagesh Chandra Verma and Nirmala Prasad in the instant writ petition and any order passed by Commission would be ultimately subject to result of the writ petition. 27. It is unconceivable that after said order was passed on 29.10.2015 on the petition of Respondent-Ranchi University itself, by Justice S.B. Sinha Commission, under what circumstances Respondent- University proceeded to keep absorption order of the Petitioner in abeyance vide Notification dated 23.03.2018 and vide further Notification dated 23.03.2018, passed order for absorbing the services of Bhagesh Chandra Verma and Nirmala Prasad. 28. In the opinion of this court, Respondent-Ranchi University should have restrained itself from passing any order of keeping in abeyance absorption order of the Petitioner, especially because absorption order of the Petitioner had attained finality up to Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Judgment rendered in the case of Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh (supra). 28. In the opinion of this court, Respondent-Ranchi University should have restrained itself from passing any order of keeping in abeyance absorption order of the Petitioner, especially because absorption order of the Petitioner had attained finality up to Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Judgment rendered in the case of Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh (supra). Further, Respondent-Ranchi University failed to consider that keeping in abeyance absorption order of the Petitioner would have adverse consequences upon him, especially in view of the fact that he served Mandar College, Mandar for a period of about 35 years and just about one month prior to his retirement, his absorption order was stayed having adverse effect on revision of his pay-scale and consequential payment of retirement benefits in revised pay-scale, including payment of pensionary benefits. 29. It is further observed that once the order pertaining to absorption of the Petitioner has already attained finality up to Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was not open for Respondent-Ranchi University to keep in abeyance absorption order of the Petitioner. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in quashing the Notification contained in Memo No. B- 187/18 dated 23.03.2018 by which absorption of services of the Petitioner was kept in abeyance. Accordingly, said Notification is, hereby, quashed. 30. Since the Petitioner has already superannuated from service with effect from 30 th April, 2018, he is entitled for payment of all post retiral benefits by revising his pay-scale as per 5 th , 6 th and 7 th U.G.C. pay- scale, including arrears of Pension which the Petitioner would be entitled in revised pay-scale from the date of his retirement. 31. Accordingly, it is ordered that the Petitioner may be extended post retiral benefits by Respondent-Ranchi University including benefits of Pension and Respondent-State of Jharkhand is directed to grant approval of revision of pay-scale of Appellant in 5 th , 6 th and 7 th U.G.C. pay-scale and also to consequentially release fund for payment of post retiral benefits including arrears of Pension to the Petitioner. Further, Respondent-State of Jharkhand and Respondent-Ranchi University are directed to ensure that Pension is regularly paid to Petitioner on month-to-month basis. Aforesaid exercise should be completed by Respondent-State of Jharkhand and Ranchi University within a period of 12 months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 32. Further, Respondent-State of Jharkhand and Respondent-Ranchi University are directed to ensure that Pension is regularly paid to Petitioner on month-to-month basis. Aforesaid exercise should be completed by Respondent-State of Jharkhand and Ranchi University within a period of 12 months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 32. So far as relief claimed by the Petitioner for quashing of Notification dated 23.03.2018, wherein services of Respondent No.4 was absorbed from the date of taking over of Mandar College as constituent college and service of Respondent No.5 was absorbed with effect from 30.11.1996, is concerned; this Court is of the opinion that absorption of services of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 cannot, at this stage, be directed to be cancelled, especially because Respondent No.4 superannuated from service with effect from 30 th December, 2024 and Respondent No.5 has also superannuated from service with effect from May, 2024. In fact, under almost identical circumstances, Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Uday Kumar Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors , being W.P.(S) No. 2985 of 2018, vide Judgment and order dated 10.11.2023, has passed an order as under:- “20. In the instant case, since respondent No.6 has already retired, his appointment and absorption cannot be a matter of challenge as it is fault of the University and not of petitioner and respondent No.6 as it is the University who has power and privilege to adjust them. Since both the petitioner and respondent No.6 were getting salary and other benefits since long and as per the averment made by petitioner that the salary is the outlook of the University, then as per settled law respondent No.6 is entitled for pay- fixation and retiral benefits in the revised pay-scale and the same cannot be denied only on the ground that his initial appointment was not in accordance with law. The same cannot be questioned after retirement of respondent No.6. 21. It is the University who has allowed the petitioner as well as respondent No.6 to continue on their respective posts and, as such, they are entitled for all the benefits for which they are entitled for. 22. As far as petitioner is concerned since he is already working and pay-fixation has been ordered to be done by this Court, he is also entitled for pay-fixation and salary as per the 5 th and 6 th PRC. 23. 22. As far as petitioner is concerned since he is already working and pay-fixation has been ordered to be done by this Court, he is also entitled for pay-fixation and salary as per the 5 th and 6 th PRC. 23. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondent-University is directed to grant the retiral benefits to respondent No.6 by revising the pay-scale as per 5 th , 6 th and 7 th PRC and also revise the pay-scale of petitioner under the recommendation of 5 th , 6 th and 7 th PRC and extend the consequential benefits accrued to them, in accordance with law” 33. In view of aforesaid facts, it is hereby clarified that while this Court is not interfering with the order of absorption of services of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for the reasons stated hereinabove, the same would not, in any manner, adversely affect the case of Writ Petitioner whose services were already absorbed and such absorption had attained finality by Hon’ble Supreme Court. The direction already stated above with respect to the Petitioner is required to be complied with by both, Respondent-State of Jharkhand and Ranchi University. 34. Consequently, the instant writ application stands disposed of with aforesaid directions. Pending I.A., if any, shall also stand disposed of. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.