JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard Ld. Counsel for the parties. 2. Both these Writ Petitions having common prayer and issue were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The Petitioners in both these Writ Petitions have commonly prayed for the following reliefs: a. For issuance of an appropriate Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ (s), Order (s) or Direction (s) to the respondents to confirm the absorption of the petitioner on the post which is recommended prior to cut off date i.e 30.04.1986 and fully covered by the principle laid down by the Justice Agarwal Commission at Page-24-25 of VOL-1 of its report and on the sanctioned in terms of Government letter dated 18.12.1989 (181-C) which has been duly accepted by this Hon’ble Court in its Judgment of State of Bihar Vs. Bihar Rajya MSESKK Mahasangh, 2005 (9) SCC 129 at conclusion-1. b. For issuance of an appropriate Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ (s), Order (s) or Direction (s) to the Respondents to pay salary to the petitioner in terms of 6th pay scale applicable to the similarly situated employees.” 4. In W.P (S) No. 328/2019 [Mahakant Jha v. State of Jharkhand and ors.], the petitioner was temporarily appointed as Lecturer in the department of Commerce at B.S.K College, Barharwa on 10.08.1981; pursuant to which, he gave his joining on 13.08.1981. 5. In W.P (S) No. 6056 / 2018 [Dr. Shyam Kishore Ambastha v. State of Jharkhand and ors.] the petitioner was temporarily appointed as Lecturer in the department of Commerce at B.S.K College, Barharwa on 09.09.1985, pursuant to which, he gave his joining on 16.09.1985. 6. The B.S.K College, Barharwa was converted into a constituent College of Bhagalpur University, Bihar with effect from 01.01.1987 under an agreement executed on 19.08.1986. Subsequently, upon the establishment of the Sido Kanhu Murmu University, the college has become a constituent unit of the Sido Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka. 7. On 17.01.1987, the State Govt. constituted a “Three Men High Level Committee” to enquire the number of posts and also about the persons who were working on the sanctioned posts / recommended posts. After considering the report, the State Govt. vide letter no. 7. On 17.01.1987, the State Govt. constituted a “Three Men High Level Committee” to enquire the number of posts and also about the persons who were working on the sanctioned posts / recommended posts. After considering the report, the State Govt. vide letter no. 38/C dated 01.02.1988 notified the names of teaching and non-teaching employees working in newly converted constituent college and also notified the number of sanctioned posts in different department of different colleges for teaching and non-teaching staffs. Subsequently, eight-member committee was constituted to revise the said list dated 01.02.1988. The said committee submitted its report which culminated in the Govt. letter dated 18.12.1989 (181/C). The name of the petitioners finds place in the Govt. letter dated 18.12.1989 (181/C). 8. Thereafter, the association of teaching and non-teaching employees filed a writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 4021 of 1995 before the Patna High Court, which was allowed by the Patna High Court vide order dated 31.01.1997 directing the University to take steps under Section 4(1)(14) of the Bihar Universities Act, 1976, in respect of regularization of the services of the Colleges which had became constituent colleges under different Universities. 9. Against the said order dated 31.01.1997 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4021 of 1995, the State of Bihar moved before Hon’ble Supreme Court filing S.L.P(C) No. 10452 of 1997 which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in said matter constituted Justice S.C. Agrawal Commission vide order dated 12.10.2001. 10. Justice Agrawal Commission thereafter, submitted its report before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 19.12.2003. As far as the BSK College, Barharwa is concerned; the Hon’ble Agrawal Commission at Annexure-IVA of its report recommended the names of the teaching staff who are eligible to be considered for absorption keeping in view the number of sanctioned posts as mentioned in the order of the Government of the Bihar dated 01.02.1988 and keeping in view the nature of posts. The said list also contains the names of the petitioners. 11. Thereafter, names of the petitioners were recommended by Hon’ble Justice Agrawal Commission for absorption vide Annexure-IVA of the report. Annexure-IIIA of the Agrawal Commission’s Report is facts of the case only and final recommendation of the Hon’ble Justice Agrawal Commission for absorption of teaching staff is Annexure-IVA which has already been accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. Thereafter, names of the petitioners were recommended by Hon’ble Justice Agrawal Commission for absorption vide Annexure-IVA of the report. Annexure-IIIA of the Agrawal Commission’s Report is facts of the case only and final recommendation of the Hon’ble Justice Agrawal Commission for absorption of teaching staff is Annexure-IVA which has already been accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. After passing of the order dated 12.10.2004 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997, the S.K.M. University, Dumka absorbed the petitioners in the services of the S.K.M University in terms of Notification No.24 of 2005 dated 07.04.2005. 12. Since, the dispute could not be settled on the basis of the recommendation of the Justice S.C. Agrawal Commission, the Hon’ble Supreme Court subsequently appointed Justice S.B. Sinha Commission on 19.08.2013. The petitioners made an application before Justice S.B. Sinha Commission. However, Justice S.B. Sinha Commission dismissed the claim of the petitioners holding the fact that there was no sanctioned/recommended post available in the department. Subsequently the petitioners filed application before the Justice S.B. Sinha Commission for the recall of the said dismissal order but the same was also dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petitions claiming aforesaid relief. 13. The respondents have appeared and filed counter affidavit in both the cases stating that Petitioners were appointed as Lecturers on the non-sanctioned post in the Department of Commerce in B.S.K College, Barharwa, Sahibganj. As per Annexure-IA of the Report of Justice (Retd.) Agrawal Commission there was only one (1) sanctioned post of Lecturer in the Department of Commerce in the college till 14.08.1981. As per Annexure-II-A of Agrawal Commission Report, recommendation for only one (1) post was sent on 25 April, 1981 for the Department of Commerce for this College. Thus, in totality, there were only two posts available for absorbing two teachers in the Department of Commerce in this college. So, the total number of teachers who could have been regularized/absorbed in the Department of Commerce in this College was only two. Ld. Counsel reiterated that there was no third post or more posts available for absorption/regularization of the petitioners in this college in view of the recommendations of Justice Agrawal Commission and/or the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in Civil Appeal no. 6098 of 1997. Ld. Counsel reiterated that there was no third post or more posts available for absorption/regularization of the petitioners in this college in view of the recommendations of Justice Agrawal Commission and/or the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in Civil Appeal no. 6098 of 1997. In the report of Agrawal Commission, the names of the petitioners were included in Annexure-III-A, in the category of RII/NR and in view of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Civil Appeal Case No. 6098 of 1997 since the name of the petitioners find place in the negative list i.e. Annexure-III-A, the case of the petitioners was/is not fit for absorption at all even though their names find place in Annexure-IV-A; thus, there does not arise any question of confirmation of the absorption of the petitioners by the University vide Notification no. 24 of 2005 dated 07.04.2005. 14. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the rival parties, it appears that the case of similarly situated persons from the same B.S.K College, Barharwa fell for consideration before this Court in the case of W.P(S) No. 2594 of 2018 titled Anil Kumar Sarkar and Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.] which was allowed vide order dated 10.01.2022. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are as follows: “17. Further case of the petitioners is that names of the petitioners have been recommended by the Hon’ble Justice Agarwal Commission for absorption vide Annexure-IVA of the report (Annexure-3 of the writ petition) and Annexure-IIIA of the Agarwal Commission’s Report is facts of the case only and final recommendation of the Hon’ble Agarwal Commission for absorption of teaching staff is Annexure-IVA which has already been accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. After passing of the order dated 12.10.2004 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997, the S.K.M. Univeristy, Dumka absorbed the petitioners in the services of the S.K.M University in terms of Notification No. 23 of 2005 (Annexure- 5 of the writ application) and in the said Notification name of the petitioners are appearing at serial no. 27,32,34,36,37,39,40,41 and 42. 18. Further case of the petitioners is that after passing the order of absorption by the SKM University i.e. Respondent no. 27,32,34,36,37,39,40,41 and 42. 18. Further case of the petitioners is that after passing the order of absorption by the SKM University i.e. Respondent no. 5, the S.K.M. University also fixed the pay scale of the petitioners in 5th UGC Pay Scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and same was sent by the Registrar, SKM University, Dumka (Respondent no. 6) before the Director (Higher Education), Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand (now Higher, Technical Education and Skill Development Department), vide Annexure13 of the writ petition, for approval for payment of salary in 5th UGC Pay Scale. Names of the petitioners also find mentioned in the said pay fixation chart at serial nos. 5,7,8,9,10, 12, 13, 14 and 15….. 27. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in paragraph-15 of the Judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 339 of 2011, reported in 2012(3) JLJR 579 has held as follows: “15. In this fact, situation we may again look into the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar & Others Vs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh (supra) as according to the counsel for the appellant State, the State Government is not bound to accord benefits of revision of pay scale because of the fact that the recommendations were not sent in time by the university. At this juncture, it will be appropriate to observe that in the case of State of Bihar & Others Vs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly held that in the matter of deciding the question of validity of appointment in affiliated colleges and absorption of those appointees in constituent colleges, the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon vests in the university in view of Section 4(1) (14) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the said matter is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the university concerned. Then it has been held that Section 35 requires prior sanction or approval of the State Government for certain of the posts and appointment, not a constraint on the power of the university and the university can review appointment and consider absorption of its staff employed without valid sanction of the post. Otherwise also it is not the case of the State Government that such power vests in the State Government of examining validity of appointment in the constituent colleges. Otherwise also it is not the case of the State Government that such power vests in the State Government of examining validity of appointment in the constituent colleges. In view of the above, it is clear that the appointment of the petitioners, who were appointed In the year 1985, were not found to be illegal by the Commission after considering the objection of the State Government that their names were inserted by interpolation and the Commission thereafter recommended for absorption of the writ petitioners and Hon’ble Supreme Court has already rejected all objections against the Commission’s report including the State Government objections which have been referred above.” The order passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 339 of 2011 has also been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No. CC6146 OF 2013 (State of Jharkhand and Anothes Vs. Surendra Kumar Sahu and others). 28. The said issue also fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Sh. Avinash Sharan and others Vs. The State of Jharkhand and others in Contempt Case (C) No. 824 of 2007 and in the case of Dr. Trilochan Mahto and others Vs. The State of Jharkhand and another in Contempt Case (C) No. 370 of 2012 as also in the case of Satya Narayan Singh and another Vs. The State of Jharkhand and others in W.P.(S) No. 5197 of 2017 and this Court directed the respondents to consider case of the petitioners taking into consideration the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3260 of 2016. 29. It appears from the record that after passing order dated 08.03.2013 in Contempt Case (C) No. 370 of 2012 by this Court, the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department also admitted that State Government is not required to take any decision regarding absorption of the teachers in the services of the University and the same has to be taken by the University and State has to take decision about the pay fixation only, as received from the University. Since petitioners are eligible for absorption and as such approval is to be granted for fixation of pay as made by the University.” 15. Similar issue also fell for consideration in the case of W.P (S) No. 7360 of 2017 disposed of vide order dated 01.12.2025 and in this regard it is relevant to quote para-10, 11 and 12 of the said order. “10. Similar issue also fell for consideration in the case of W.P (S) No. 7360 of 2017 disposed of vide order dated 01.12.2025 and in this regard it is relevant to quote para-10, 11 and 12 of the said order. “10. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that this Court in a catena of decisions in similar cases has decided the issue. In W.P. (S) No. 6491 of 2017 and W.P. (S) No. 6503 of 2017, this Court has observed as under:- Para 18- “… with reference to the government decision dated 18.12.1989, the Hon'ble Supreme Court negated the objection of the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand that letter no. 181C is not the governmental decision as it was not authenticated in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held out that the letter dated 18.12.1989 is the reflection of the governmental decision and it cannot be impeached on the ground that the said letter was not authenticated in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution and there is no cabinet decision and accordingly, the Hon'ble Apex Court accepted the letter no. 181C as a governmental decision." Para 20-"In view of the statements made in the writ petition, it is manifest that two vacant posts are available for absorption of those teaching employees as it has been indicated that vacancy created in the Department of Commerce in A.B.M. College, Jamshedpur on retirement of Sri S.K. Mishra and on transfer of Sri D.K. Mitra. The Hon’ble Patna High Court in Akhilanand Singh & Ors. Vs The State of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 17670 of 2017 reported in 2018 (3) PLIR 1029) came to the following conclusions:…. Para 21- "As a cumulative effect of the discussion made above and in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as Patna High Court, the respondent-University is directed to absorb the petitioners and render the status of absorbed employee in terms of the original decision of absorption and notification considering the fact that the name of the petitioners figure in the letter no. 181 (C)." Para 22-"it is needless to say that once the University takes favourable decision on the claim of the petitioners, the University will work out for the entitlement and request the State Government for grant of additional fund so that the consequential monetary benefit may be extended to the petitioners." 11. This Court in W.P. (S) No. 4173 of 2013 – Prof. Goverdhan Mehta v. State of Jharkhand & Others, has held in paragraph 10 as under:- “10. In the backdrop of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the issue is no longer res integra and it is the University alone which is competent to confirm/regularize the services of the employees of the newly converted constituent colleges and since the University has already, as far back as in the year 1997, confirmed the appointment of the Petitioner on the post of Lecturer in the Department of English at Marwari College, no further exercise is required to be undertaken for regularization/confirmation of the services of the Petitioner. It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner had been duly discharging his services on the post of Lecturer in the Department of English and, in fact, after serving for almost 40 years, the Petitioner has already superannuated from service on 31.08.2020. It is also an undisputed fact that the Petitioner all along has been paid his salary, but in the unrevised payscale and the benefit of revision of pay-scale pursuant to 5th, 6th and 7th UGC revised pay-scale has not been extended to the Petitioner. The said benefit has not been extended to the Petitioner on the pretext that services of the Petitioner were not regularized. Reliance placed by the State Government upon the Judgment of Dr. Shiv Narain Yadav & ors (supra) Vs. State of Bihar and ors, reported in (2001) 2 PLJR 817 , for denying the benefit of revision of pay-scale is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. In this case, services of the Petitioner have already been regularized on 29.05.1997 (Annexure-9) by the Respondent- Ranchi University and, thus, the said decision would not be applicable in the case of the Petitioner. In this case, services of the Petitioner have already been regularized on 29.05.1997 (Annexure-9) by the Respondent- Ranchi University and, thus, the said decision would not be applicable in the case of the Petitioner. Apart from that, the aforesaid decision of Division Bench of the Patna High Court has already been referred to a larger Bench for re- consideration and, further, coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kusheshwar Prasad Singh (supra), has already distinguished the ratio of the said Judgment in the case of similarly situated employees.” 12. It is an admitted case that the services of the petitioner were regularized by the State Government vide Notification No.181/C dated 18.12.1989 (Annexure-5); which letter has nowhere been rescinded and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the said benefits. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner continued in service since the date of his joining i.e. 05.07.1985 till the attainment of age of superannuation i.e. 31st January 2023 and during the entire period, the petitioner was paid his salary, though at the unrevised scale. The respondents having taken work from the petitioner and thus cannot deny him the benefits of 5th, 6th and 7th Pay Revisions. Similarly, the Respondent cannot deny payment of retiral dues to the petitioner after having taken work from him for about 38 years.” 16. Further, in W.P. (S) No. 6491 of 2017 and W.P. (S) No. 6503 of 2017, this Court has observed as under:- “18- … with reference to the government decision dated 18.12.1989, the Hon'ble Supreme Court negated the objection of the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand that letter no. 181C is not the governmental decision as it was not authenticated in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held out that the letter dated 18.12.1989 is the reflection of the governmental decision and it cannot be impeached on the ground that the said letter was not authenticated in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution and there is no cabinet decision and accordingly, the Hon'ble Apex Court accepted the letter no. 181C as a governmental decision. 181C as a governmental decision. 20-" In view of the statements made in the writ petition, it is manifest that two vacant posts are available for absorption of those teaching employees as it has been indicated that vacancy created in the Department of Commerce in A.B.M. College, Jamshedpur on retirement of Sri S.K. Mishra and on transfer of Sri D.K. Mitra. The Hon’ble Patna High Court in “Akhilanand Singh & Ors. Vs The State of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 17670 of 2017 reported in 2018 (3) PLIR 1029) came to the following conclusions:……. 21. As a cumulative effect of the discussion made above and in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as Patna High Court, the respondent-University is directed to absorb the petitioners and render the status of absorbed employee in terms of the original decision of absorption and notification considering the fact that the name of the petitioners figure in the letter no. 181 (C). 22. It is needless to say that once the University takes favourable decision on the claim of the petitioners, the University will work out for the entitlement and request the State Government for grant of additional fund so that the consequential monetary benefit may be extended to the petitioners." 17. In yet another case also, W.P. (S) No. 4173 of 2013 – (Prof. Goverdhan Mehta v. State of Jharkhand & Others), this Court has held in paragraph 10 as under:- “10. In the backdrop of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the issue is no longer res integra and it is the University alone which is competent to confirm/regularize the services of the employees of the newly converted constituent colleges and since the University has already, as far back as in the year 1997, confirmed the appointment of the Petitioner on the post of Lecturer in the Department of English at Marwari College, no further exercise is required to be undertaken for regularization/confirmation of the services of the Petitioner. It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner had been duly discharging his services on the post of Lecturer in the Department of English and, in fact, after serving for almost 40 years, the Petitioner has already superannuated from service on 31.08.2020. It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner had been duly discharging his services on the post of Lecturer in the Department of English and, in fact, after serving for almost 40 years, the Petitioner has already superannuated from service on 31.08.2020. It is also an undisputed fact that the Petitioner all along has been paid his salary, but in the unrevised pay-scale and the benefit of revision of pay-scale pursuant to 5th, 6th and 7th UGC revised pay-scale has not been extended to the Petitioner. The said benefit has not been extended to the Petitioner on the pretext that services of the Petitioner were not regularized. Reliance placed by the State Government upon the Judgment of Dr. Shiv Narain Yadav & ors (supra) Vs. State of Bihar and ors, reported in (2001) 2 PLJR 817 , for denying the benefit of revision of pay-scale is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. In this case, services of the Petitioner have already been regularized on 29.05.1997 (Annexure-9) by the Respondent- Ranchi University and, thus, the said decision would not be applicable in the case of the Petitioner. Apart from that, the aforesaid decision of Division Bench of the Patna High Court has already been referred to a larger Bench for re- consideration and, further, coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kusheshwar Prasad Singh (supra), has already distinguished the ratio of the said Judgment in the case of similarly situated employees.” 18. In the case at hand, admittedly, after passing of the aforesaid order dated 12.10.2004 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997, the S.K.M. University, Dumka absorbed the petitioners in the services of the S.K.M University in terms of Notification No. 24 of 2005 dated 07.04.2005. In view of such admitted position, this Court is of the view that at this stage, it is not open for the respondents to question absorption of petitioners who have already been absorbed in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court considering Annexure-IVA of the Report of the Agrawal Commission. 19. It is also an admitted case that the services of the petitioners were regularized by the State Government vide Notification No.181/C dated 18.12.1989; which letter has nowhere been rescinded and, therefore, the petitioners cannot be deprived of the benefits as prayed for. 19. It is also an admitted case that the services of the petitioners were regularized by the State Government vide Notification No.181/C dated 18.12.1989; which letter has nowhere been rescinded and, therefore, the petitioners cannot be deprived of the benefits as prayed for. It is also an admitted position that the petitioners continued in service since the date of their joining, i.e. 13.08.1981 and 09.09.1985 and during the entire period, the petitioners were paid their salaries, though at the unrevised scale. Furthermore, the respondents have taken work from the petitioners and thus cannot deny them the benefits of 5th, and 6th Pay Revisions. Similarly, the Respondent cannot deny payment of other consequential benefits to the petitioners after having taken work from them for their entire service period. 20. Accordingly, the instant writ applications deserve to be, and are, hereby, allowed as the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs of benefits of a regular employee which includes the payment of arrears of salary on the basis of the 5th, and 6th Pay Revisions as well as all consequential benefits. 21. As such, the concerned Respondents are directed to issue a formal order and extend all other consequential benefits within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt /production of copy of this order. 22. Consequently, the instant writ applications stand allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending I.A.s, if any, also stands disposed of.