2026:JHHC:11395 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4057 of 2018 ….….. 1. Anshuman Priyadarshi, aged about 58 years, son of Late Ambika Prasad Sharma @ A.P. Sharma, resident of 5 Hill View Road, Northern Town Bistupur, P.O. Sakchi, P.S. Bistupur, District-East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur. 2. Amal Krishna Satyajeet, aged about 52 years, son of late Ambika Prasad Sharma @ A.P. Sharma, resident of First Floor, Anshu Sadan, Harihar Singh Road, Bhanda Bagicha, P.O. & P.S. Morabadi, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. ..… Petitioner (s) Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through Secretary/Principal Secretary, Higher Education and Skill Development Department having office at Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, Town and District-Ranchi. 2. The Ranchi University through its Registrar having office at Kutchery Road, P.O. and P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi. 3. The Vice-Chancellor, Ranchi University having office at Kutchery Road, P.O. and P.S. Kotwali, District- Ranchi. ..... Respondent(s) ….….. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ….… For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For the Resp.-State: Mr. Divyam, A.C. to S.C.-IV For the University : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Pratyush, Advocate Mr. Shubham Malviya, Advocate ….….. C.A.V. ON 09/04/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:18/04/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The original petitioner namely Usha Sharma had moved before this Court with the prayer for payment of pensionary benefits including pension, GPF, Gratuity, Leave Encashment and other dues as the petitioner has superannuated from the 2026:JHHC:11395 2 post of Lecturer (History), Mandar College, Mandar w.e.f. 31.8.2009. The petitioner has also prayed for benefits of the difference of 5th and 6th Pay Revision and also for absorption of her services, inasmuch as, the petitioner has been appointed before the cut off dated 30.4.1986 in the newly converted constituent college. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the original petitioner was appointed on the post of lecturer at Mandar College, Mandar in Subject – History, on 29.06.1985. Considering the row and confusion prevailing with respect to eligibility of teaching and non-teaching staffs in the newly converted constituent colleges, a three Member Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Inter Universities Board for examining and recommending the eligible appointees for absorption. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a letter dated 01.02.1988 (Annexure-1) was issued by the Human Resource Development Department, Government of Bihar on the basis of 3-Men Enquiry Committee Report, wherein it has been mentioned that the original Petitioner had been appointed on a sanctioned post and her name was placed at serial no. 3 as against the subject of History (Hons.). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the then Department of Human Resource Development 2026:JHHC:11395 3 Department, Government of Bihar vide letter no. 181/C dated 18.12.1989 has forwarded a provisional list for absorption for which approval from the University Service Commission had to be obtained. In the said list also, the name of the Petitioner is mentioned at serial no. 7 as against the subject of History (Hons.). 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the original petitioner was terminated w.e.f. 22.6.1995; however, she was reinstated in service vide a notification dated 04.10.1998 and it was held that her termination had been illegal and the period between the date of termination and the date of reinstatement was treated to be an extra-ordinary leave. 7. The matter of absorption of the teaching and non-teaching employees on the basis of their eligibility travelled upto the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6098/1997 and vide order dated 12.10.2001 an Enquiry Commission under Shri Justice S.C. Agrawal was constituted. 8. The reference before the Justice Agarwal Commission is being reproduced as under: - (i) How many sanctioned posts of teacher and non-teaching employees were there in the 40 colleges which were converted into constituent colleges pursuant to the sanction letter dated 19.8.1986? (ii) How many proposals with regard to creation of post for teachers and non-teaching staffs had been submitted to the Education Deptt. or the University before the cut off dated i.e. 30.4.1986? 2026:JHHC:11395 4 (iii) How many teachers and non-teaching employees seeking absorption in the constituent colleges were not appointed through selection made by the Commission and whether they possess the basic qualification? (iv) How many teaching and non-teaching employees could be entitled for absorption on the basis of govt. letter dated 19.8.1986? 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners while relying upon the Paragraph-10, 12, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63 and 64 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar Vrs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh and others, reported in (2005) 9 SCC 129 had contended that the order dated 18.12.1989 passed by the then H.R.D. Department of the Government of Bihar, whereby the State Govt. had been directed for temporary absorption of employees against posts sanctioned and recommended by the Committee, subject to certain terms and conditions, had not been the subject matter of reference before Justice Agrawal Commission. 10. The petitioner had further argued that the stand of the State of Bihar & Jharkhand questioning the validity and authenticity of the order dated 1.2.88 and 18.12.1989 was held not acceptable. 11. Ld. Counsel had also relied upon the notification of the Ranchi University dated 29.11.2005 (Annexure-16), and had submitted that in pursuance to the resolution of the Syndicate held on 19.11.2005, the names of the teaching and non- teaching staffs working in the newly converted constituent 2026:JHHC:11395 5 colleges against the posts not available in same college though available in other constituent colleges were forwarded for regularization. The said list also included the name of the petitioner at sl. no. 8 and she had been directed to be absorbed in the vacant post of English. In the said list, the name of one Nirmala Prasad appears at sl. no. 7, who was also a lecturer in Political Science but was regularized in English. It has also been submitted that the Retired Justice S.C. Agrawal Commission had also directed the University to take a decision in the matter of absorption of appointees named in list-II of the report of the committee being appointees against post for which recommendation was sent by the University to the State Govt. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners had further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had again appointed Retd. Justice S.C. Agrawal to enquire into the matter of absorption of left over teaching and non-teaching employees, who had declined; whereupon on 19.08.2013, Retd. Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha was appointed as one-Man Commission. The petitioner has approached Hon’ble Retd. Justice S.B. Sinha ventilating her grievances wherein the case history of the original petitioner was presented by the University wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner was appointed on 2026:JHHC:11395 6 sanctioned post. The said stand of the University has been brought on record by way of Annexure-14. 13. The Hon'ble Retd. Justice S.B. Sinha Commission vide its order dated 18.3.2015 has rejected the claim of the original petitioner as time barred, for the reason, the Commission has no jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing claim petition. It has further been argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2703/2017 dated 31.08.2017, had further given liberty to the cases of the incumbent not found fit for acceptance by the Commission to approach and contest the matter before their respective High Courts, if they so desire. 14. The Respondent-State filed its counter affidavit; wherein it had been stated that the services of the original petitioner has not been absorbed by the University. Ld. Counsel for the State had relied upon the letter dated 9.10.2018 (Annexure-B to the counter affidavit) to contend that since the services of the original petitioner have not been absorbed, the benefits of permanency cannot be extended to them. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent-University submits that the number of sanctioned posts in the Department of History, Mandar College were 6 and as against the said post absorption of 6 Lecturers whose names find mentioned in Annexure-IIIA and IVA has been made and due to non- availability of further sanctioned post, the services of the 2026:JHHC:11395 7 original writ petitioner has not been absorbed. It has also been mentioned that since, the petitioner has not been absorbed in Ranchi University, she is not entitled for payment of retiral dues and she has already been paid her provident fund amount of Rs. 46,581/-. 16. During the pendency of the writ petition, the original petitioner Usha Sharma had died on 19.5.2020 and she was substituted by her legal heir/son claiming the monetary benefits arising from the difference from the salary under 5th and 6th Pay Revision and also the retiral dues to which the original-petitioner would have been entitled. Now after going through rival contentions and pleadings on record, the issue for consideration that arises before this Court is that “whether the original petitioner Usha Sharma was entitled for absorption and consequently for payment of the benefits of the pay revision and the pensionary dues”. 17. Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties, it appears from the judgment in the case of State of Bihar Vrs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh (Supra) that the issue in relation to legality of appointment of the teaching and non- teaching staffs had not been subject matter of consideration before the Justice Agrawal Commission. The relevant extract of the judgement is being reproduced. “60. The validity and authenticity of the two orders dated 01.2.1988 and 2026:JHHC:11395 8 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 01.2.1988, 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 01.2.1988 is duly authorized order of the State Government and this fact is evident from the subsequent Resolution No. 307 dated 08.3.1988, which is duly authenticated order issued in the name of the Governor of Bihar. The subsequent Resolution formally issued in the name of Governor is a sequel to the order dated 01.2.1988 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, the Commission did not go into that question stating that it was subject matter for decision before this Court in the present pending appeal. 62. Since the validity and authenticity of the two orders dated 01.2.1988 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 01.2.1988 was followed by a formal Resolution No. 307 dated 08.3.1988 which was duly authenticated order issued in the name of Governor of Bihar and did not disturb the order dated 01.2.1988. It is a resolution formally taken and expressed in the name of Government of Bihar in accordance with Article 166 of the Constitution of India to give effect to the order made on 01.2.1988. 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 Governor in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution of India, the State itself cannot be allowed to resile or go back on that decision. Mere change of the elected government does not justify dishonouring the decisions of previous elected government. If at all the two decisions contained in the orders dated 01.2.1988 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 01.2.1988 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.” 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Akhilanand Singh Vrs. State of Bihar, reported in (2018) SCC Online Pat 1573 to contend that in terms of letter no. 181C wherein the name of the original petitioner appears, the University was under 2026:JHHC:11395 9 obligation to absorb them and restore the status of absorbed employee. The Counsel for the petitioner relied upon para-35 and 42 of the judgment passed by the Patna High Court in identical circumstances and arising from the same and related transaction. The relevant paragraphs 35 and 42 are being reproduced herein. “35. In matters where the name of individual teaching and nonteaching employee figures in the provisional list of absorption contained in letter no. 181C, 38C and 36C and so far as the nonteaching employ7ees 25C are concerned, the University was required to recognize their cases as eligible for absorption in view of the judgement in Mahasangh’s case and the University was required to issue appropriate notification in the light of the letter no. 181 A, 38C, 36C and 25C and as such the Court does not approve the action of the University in reviewing the notification of absorption taken by the University if supported by the report of Justice Agarwal Commission, Judgement in Mahasangh’s Case, letter no. 181(C), 38(C) and 25(C). 42. The respondent-University is directed to restore the petitioner 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).” 19. This Court in the case of Ravi Bhushan Prasad Amar Vrs. The Stat of Jharkhand vide its judgement dated 01.12.2025 passed in W.P.(S) No. 7360/2017 has considered the status of the Government decision as contained in letter no. 181(C) at paragraph-10, 11 and 12 and has held under:- “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." 2026:JHHC:11395 10 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. In yet another case, 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 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.” 12. It is an admitted case, 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 never 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 her 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 her salary, though at the unrevised scale. The respondents having taken work from the petitioner and thus cannot deny her the benefits of 5th, 6th and 7th Pay Revisions. Similarly, the respondent cannot deny payment of retiral dues to the original-petitioner after having taken work from her for about 38 years.” 20. Further, in the case of Mahakant Jha Vrs. State of 2026:JHHC:11395 11 Jharkhand in W.P.(S) No. 328 of 2019, this Court has the occasion to consider the status of the employee (teaching/non- teaching) mentioned in Letter No. 181(C) dated 18.12.1989 and has held that since the letter has nowhere been rescinded, therefore, the petitioners therein are entitled for absorption. 21. Learned counsel for the University, Mr. A.K. Mehta, has relied upon the judgment dated 16.8.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1088/2018, wherein the claim of absorption of the petitioner has been rejected. The judgment dated 16.8.2024 is distinguishable in the facts that Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha has dismissed the claim of the petitioner, however, with respect to the original-petitioner whose name figured in Letter No. 181(C), there has been no such adjudication/recommendation either by the Retd. Justice S.C. Agarwal Commission or by the Retd. Justice S.B. Sinha Commission. It is imperative to mention here that objection of the validity and authenticity of the Letter dated 1.2.1988 and 18.12.1989 as raised by the State of Bihar and Jharkhand has been rejected and the Commission has taken note of the fact that the State being the author of the decision could not have resiled or go back on that decision. The State has further not withdrawn or rescinded the same and from the wordings of the letter no. 181(C) it is apparent that the same has been issued after considering the recommendations of a committee with 2026:JHHC:11395 12 certain stipulation with respect to the eligibility and prescription of minimum mark.’ 22. This Court also finds that the Ranchi University, Ranchi vide its notification dated 29.11.2005 (Annexure-16), which has been issued in pursuance to the decision of the Syndicate has proposed to regularise the teaching employees against the posts not available in the college but available in other subject within the college. In the said list the name of Dr. (Mrs.) Nirmala Prasad figures at Sl. No. 7 and the name of Dr. (Mrs.) Usha Sharma figures at Sl. No. 8 who has been sought to be adjusted against the subject English, inasmuch as, post was available and nobody was working against the said post. The nature of the post available with respect to Dr. (Mrs.) Nirmala Prasad and the original petitioner had been II(A). 23. This court also finds from the synopsis of the case history as submitted by the respondent University before Retd. Justice S.B. Sinha Commission, which is at Annexure-15 that the petitioner had been appointed on 2.7.1985 by the General Body and she possessed the qualification at the time of conversion. It has been recommended at Clause No. 17, 19 and 22 in the following manner:- 17. Qualification of the Petitioner at the time of conversion (Qualified or not) : Qualified 2026:JHHC:11395 13 19. Whether the Petitioner was absorbed as per the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court : (i) IV A (ii) 181/C √ 22 Nature of post on which regularisation was done. : On the sanctioned post of Lecturer in English in Mandar College, Mandar. Furthermore, the University has identified the nature of post to be II(A) and in view of the judgement in the case of State of Bihar Vrs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh and others (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has concluded in the following manner: - “73…. Conclusions 1. The Judgment of the High Court, to the extent of the interpretation placed by it on the provisions of Section 4(1)(14) and Section 35 with the directions issued in paras 24 to 26 therein, is hereby confirmed for the reasons recorded by us above. 2. The report of the Commission of Enquiry of Hon'ble Justice S.C. Agrawal (Retired), is accepted and all objections filed against the said report are rejected. 3. The member of the staff in various affiliated colleges identified and named in the List(i) being appointees against the sanctioned posts shall be issued by the universities concerned. 4. The universities shall take a decision under Section 4(1)(14) of the Act in the matter of absorption of appointees named in List (ii) of the report of the Commission, being appointees against posts for which recommendations were sent by the universities to the State up to the cut-off date in accordance with the decision of the State Government conveyed in its letter dated 19.08.1986 followed by letters dated 25.08.1986 and 12.06.1987. In considering the question of absorption of appointees named in the List (ii) of the report of the Enquiry Commission, the Universities concerned shall rely on the contents of the report of the Enquiry Commission and the present judgment of this Court. 5. The appointees mentioned in the List (iii), being the appointees against posts for which recommendations were sent by the universities to the State Government after the cut-off date or those working against posts for which no recommendations were sent for approval of the State Government, have no right of being considered for absorption; whatever may be the fortuitous circumstances or otherwise in the matter of not sending recommendations for sanction in their cases. The negative report of the Enquiry Commission with regard to List(iii) is accepted and the Universities are directed to exclude all such appointees named in List(iii) from consideration for absorption. 6. A large number of objections to the report of the Enquiry Commission filed before us by associates of employees and individuals pertain to the alleged lack of prescribed qualifications for the post on which they are working. All 2026:JHHC:11395 14 those objectors have not been recommended for absorption in the report of the Enquiry Commission. Decision in individual cases, with due regard to the qualification of each employee and corresponding statute applicable at the relevant time prescribing qualifications, if any, for the teaching and non- teaching posts, shall be taken by the universities based on the findings in the report of Justice Agrawal Commission and in the light of the legal position explained above.” 24. In view of the above, particularly when in the matter of absorption, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that it is the University which has the last say in the matter of absorption of appointee in List-II and when the University has proposed for the absorption of the original petitioner, she is entitled to the benefits of the 5th and 6th Pay Revision and also all the consequential benefits including the retirement benefits at par with the regular employees. 25. This Court though finds it unusual that the name of the original petitioner has been recommended for absorption in other subject but from the pleading it has surfaced that the same has been done in pursuance to the resolution of the Syndicate and similarly situated teacher namely Dr. Nirmala Prasad had also been extended the said benefits and hence, the original petitioner could not have been discriminated. It has been pleaded by the petitioner that Dr. Nirmala Prasad parity with whom the original petitioner has been seeking has been regularised in other subject and the Retd. Justice S.B. Sinha Commission has also approved the same. 26. This Court further finds that the original petitioner 2026:JHHC:11395 15 had been appointed on 2.7.1985 i.e. prior to the cut-off date being 30.4.1986 and her name was recommended in letter no. 181(C) and also by the University vide its notification dated 29.11.2005, then it clearly appears that for the laches on the part of the respondent authorities, the order of absorption of this petitioner could not be issued and hence, she continued to be paid the salary of Lecturer under 4th Pay Revision and ultimately she superannuated w.e.f. 31.8.2009 and by then she had worked for more than 24 years. It is very surprising that in a case where the respondent University had to issue a formal order of absorption, they had unnecessarily delayed the matter and had taken a contradictory stand in the counter affidavit that in absence of the order of absorption, the original petitioner cannot be allowed the retirement benefits. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujrat Vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel, reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 2004, has held in the following manner. “1. It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the services of the respondent as an ad-hoc for 30 years and thereafter now to contend that as the services rendered by the respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled to pension/pensionary benefit. The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the Services continuously for 30 years continues service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable le. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand.” 27. In any view of the matter, the respondents cannot 2026:JHHC:11395 16 take advantage of their own wrong in not absorbing the services of the original petitioner and hence, the respondent University is directed to declare the status of the petitioner as absorbed in terms of the decision as contained in letter no. 181(C) and also in the light of the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar Vrs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh and others (Supra), which has been considered by this Court in catena of cases viz. Akhilanand Singh Vrs. State of Bihar (Supra), Ravi Bhushan Prasad Amar Vrs. The State (Supra) and also in the case of Mahakant Jha (Supra). 28. The respondent University, who has taken continuous work from the original petitioner from 1985 to 2009 is directed to adjust the petitioner as an absorbed employee and allow the benefits of 5th and 6th Pay Revision to the petitioner and release the same with consequential arrears. The University is also directed to pay retirement benefits including pension till the date of death of the original petitioner and also other benefits like gratuity, leave encashment to the legal heirs of the ex-employee/ original petitioner. 29. Accordingly, this Court holds that the original - petitioner is entitled for the benefits of pay revision and pension like a regular employee and as such the respondents are directed to do needful by issuing formal order of absorption of 2026:JHHC:11395 17 the original petitioner and to work out the entitlement of monetary claim of the original petitioner within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and request the State Government for grant of additional funds so that the consequential monetary and retirement benefits are extended to the present petitioners. 30. Consequently, the instant application stands allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending I.A.s, if any also stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated:18 /04/2026 Amardeep/ N.A.F.R Uploaded on 21.04.2026