Allowed¶37

Mukesh Kumar Sinha v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC10 Jul 2025CWJC/8729/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retiral benefits; post-retiral dues; superannuation 28.02.2021; regularization of college lecturers; IV phase constituent colleges; One Man Commission; Justice (Retd.) S.C. Agrawal; Justice (Retd.) S.B. Sinha; Munger University; Mahila College Khagaria; Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University; Assistant Professor History; M.A. improvement examination; date of eligibility 13.07.1994; reopening of settled issue after retirement barred; no justification to withhold retiral benefits; direction to pay dues within twelve weeks; Patna High Court CWJC No.8729 of 2022.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; respondent-Munger University directed to accord all retiral and other admissible dues to the petitioner in accordance with law, preferably within twelve weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. ¶37

Mukesh Kumar Sinha Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents/Munger University can raise an objection afresh to the petitioner's initial appointment and regularization on the ground that he lacked high second class post-graduation qualification at the time of appointment (eligibility date fixed as 13.07.1994 by the S.C. Agrawal Commission), after the matter was twice settled by the Commissions of Justice (Retd.) S.C. Agrawal and Justice (Retd.) S.B. Sinha and after the petitioner's superannuation. +1 more

¶29

Court's answer

Once, admittedly twice, the record relating to the petitioner's service and regularization was considered and affirmed by the Commissions headed by Hon'ble Justice (Retd.) S.C. Agrawal and Hon'ble Justice (Retd.) S.B. Sinha, cognizance of any objection taken by the respondents is wholly unjustified, improper and without jurisdiction; the issue settled long back in 2015 cannot be reopened after the petitioner's superannuation in 2021.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

There must be an end of doubt at least when the relationship of employer and employee severs on account of superannuation; a matter already settled cannot be reopened after retirement.

¶35

Key takeaways

This Court finds no justification in withholding the petitioner's retiral benefits and accordingly directs the respondent-Munger University to accord all retiral and other admissible dues to the petitioner in accordance with law, preferably within twelve weeks from receipt/production of a copy of the order.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition allowed (Harish Kumar, J.; NAFR; decided 10-07-2025). The petitioner, selected as Lecturer in History in Mahila College, Khagaria on 20.02.1981 (then affiliated to Bhagalpur University, later renamed Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, now a constituent college of Munger University) and superannuated as Assistant Professor on 28.02.2021 after attaining 65 years, was denied post-retiral benefits while Munger University (letter no.16/2022 dated 03.03.2022) sought fresh clarification on his M.A. improvement examination and date of eligibility for absorption. His appointment and regularization had already been twice scrutinised and affirmed - by the One Man Committee of Hon'ble Justice (Retd.) S.C. Agrawal (following disposal of S.L.P. No.6098 of 1997 by order dated 12.10.2004, eligibility fixed at 13.07.1994) and by the One Man Commission of Hon'ble Justice (Retd.) S.B. Sinha (following order dated 22.01.2013 in SLP (C) No.12591 of 2010), with all objections rejected. Held: cognizance of any objection taken by the respondents at this stage is wholly unjustified, improper and without jurisdiction; an issue settled in 2015 cannot be reopened after superannuation in 2021, and there must be an end of doubt once the employer-employee relationship severs on superannuation; withholding retiral benefits is unjustified. Munger University directed to accord all retiral and other admissible dues in accordance with law, preferably within twelve weeks.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8729 of 2022

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Mukesh Kumar Sinha, Son of Late Krishna Prasad Sinha, R/o Sai Pushpanjali No.-2, Sai City, Near Sai Temple, Pundag, Ranchi, Jharkhand- 834004.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

The Vice-Chancellor Munger University, Munger, District- Munger.

¶8

The Registrar Munger University, Munger, District- Munger.

¶9

The Principle Mahila College, Khagaria, District- Khagaria.

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Akshansh Shanker, Advocate Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Subhash Chandra Mishra, SC-16 Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, AC to SC-16 For the University : Mr. Anand Kumar, Advocate ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT

¶13

Date : 10-07-2025

¶14

Heard the parties.

¶15

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents to ensure payment of all the post retiral benefits, who has superannuated from the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of History from Mahila College, Khagaria; a constituent college of Munger University on 28.02.2021.

¶16

The grievance of the petitioner is in limited bound. Pursuant to a local advertisement, the petitioner, who was having qualification of Master in History applied and finally selected for the post of Lecturer in the Department of History in Mahila College, Khagaria on 20.02.1981. At the relevant time,

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.8729 of 2022 dt.10-07-2025 2/7

¶18

the College, in question, was an affiliated College of Bhagalpur University and later on it was converted into constituent College of Bhagalpur University, which was renamed as Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University.

¶19

On account of controversies raised with respect to the services of the employees of the Colleges of different constituent Colleges of IV phase, various writ applications were filed in the Court, including (Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K.M. & Ors.) C.W.J.C. No.4021 of 1997. The matter travelled up to the Apex Court in S.L.P. No.6098 of 1997, which was disposed off vide order dated 12.10.2004. In pursuant thereto, a One Man Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) S.C. Agrawal. The record of all the employees, including the petitioner was placed before the Commission and the Commission headed by Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) S.C. Agrawal, submitted his report in favour of the petitioner. In pursuant to the said report, finally the University issued regularization letter in favour of the petitioner as directed by the Apex Court, the copy of which is placed on record as Annexure4.

¶20

Notwithstanding the facts noted hereinabove, once again unsuccessful candidates approached this Court and the matter again travelled upto the Apex Court in SLP (C) No.12591 of 2010 and by order dated 22.01.2013, in order to settle the

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.8729 of 2022 dt.10-07-2025 3/7

¶22

dispute in relation to 4^th phase Colleges, One Man Commission was constituted under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) S.B. Sinha. The matter in relation to the appointment of the petitioner, once again examined by the subsequent Commission headed by Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) S.B. Sinha and all the objections raised against the petitioner stood rejected and regularization of the petitioner was affirmed. Taking note of the abovementioned position, the petitioner was finally accorded the promotion to the post of Assistant Professor and subsequent thereto he reached his age of superannuation on 28.02.2021 after attaining 65 years.

¶23

Upon being superannuated, the petitioner submitted all the necessary required documents for extending all the retiral benefits and other admissible dues, in the meanwhile, the respondent-Munger University has come out with letter no.16/2022 dated 03.03.2022 and again a clarification has been sought for with regard to the improvement examination of M.A. A query has been made with regard to the date of eligibility for consideration of absorption of the petitioner on the initial post. In response to the aforesaid letter, a detailed representation has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, the copy of which is marked as Annexure-11.

¶24

Referring to the aforesaid facts, Mr. Akshansh

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.8729 of 2022 dt.10-07-2025 4/7

¶26

Shanker, learned Advocate for the petitioner, thus contended that once the initial appointment of the petitioner and his regularization on the post of Lecturer has been duly verified and approved by both the Commissions, including the Commission headed by Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) S.C. Agrawal and further Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) S.B. Sinha, any objection raised by the University is not only unwanted rather amount to overreaching the decision taken by the Commission and/or in anyway not justified. The petitioner has now already superannuated on 28.02.2021 and even after lapse of about four years, he has not been accorded his rightful benefits, compelling him to approach this Court.

¶27

Placing reliance upon a decision rendered by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in the case of Phul Chandra Thakur v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. [W.P.(S) No.5240 of 2021] , the learned Advocate for the petitioner further buttress his submission by contending that once the petitioner has already superannuated and there had never been any objection with regard to the appointment and regularization, and even if there was any objection, the same had already been stood rejected by the Commissions twice, as afore-noted; hence, it is not open for the respondents to raise the issue of appointment afresh after retirement of the petitioner.

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.8729 of 2022 dt.10-07-2025 5/7

¶29

On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State and the University submitted that the service of the petitioner has been approved by Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) S.C. Agrawal Commission and as per the said report, his date of eligibility was 13.07.1994, since at the time of appointment, he did not have high second class post-graduation qualification; hence, this objection has been raised. The service of the petitioner was again examined and an explanation has been sought for, which is under consideration. However, they did not confront with the position as has been stood settled by both the Commissions, as afore-noted.

¶30

Having heard the learned Advocate for the respective parties and considering the materials available on record, this Court finds that the facts are admitted to the extent that the record in relation to the service of the petitioner was firstly placed before Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) S.C. Agrawal Commission, wherein the Commission found…..“(viii) Shri Mukesh Kumar Sinha was appointed as Lecturer in History by order dated March 1981. On the date of appointment, he did not have high second class Post Graduation qualification. He obtained M.A. Degree with 55.7% marks on July 13, 1994. He became eligible for consideration on July 13, 1994.”…

¶31

The controversy further arose and the matter had

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.8729 of 2022 dt.10-07-2025 6/7

¶33

come up for consideration before the Apex Court again; pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, all the matters were placed before the Commission under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) S.B. Sinha. The entire matter relating to appointment and regularisation was further deliberated and examined by the Commission and finally it was opined in favour of the petitioner and rejected all the objections, resulting into regularization of the services of the petitioner and further promotion to the post of Assistant Professor. Once, admittedly, twice the record relating to service of the petitioner and regularization was considered by both the Commissions, afore-noted, this Court finds that cognizance of any objection taken by the respondents is wholly unjustified, improper and without jurisdiction. The issue which already came to be settled long back in the year 2015, it cannot be reopened after attaining superannuation of the petitioner in the year 2021. The response to the query made by the petitioner, the copy of which is also placed on record as Annexure-11, also finds substance and clarified the position; nonetheless, the petitioner has yet not been accorded his retiral and other admissible benefits, which would certainly amount to reopening of the settled matter by overreaching the reports of both the Commissions, constituted in pursuant to the decision of the Hon’ble Suprme Court to

¶34

Patna High Court CWJC No.8729 of 2022 dt.10-07-2025 7/7

¶35

resolve the dispute. There must be an end of the doubt at least when the relationship of the employer and employee severed on account of superannuation.

¶36

This Court does not find any justification in withholding retiral benefits of the petitioner. Cognizance of any objection at this stage would amount to suspecting the report of the Commissions, which may lead to unsettle the settled position. Accordingly, this Court directs the respondent-Munger University, Munger to accord all retiral and other admissible dues to the petitioner in accordance with law, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶37

The writ petition stands allowed.

¶38

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶39

rohit/-

¶40

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	17-07-2025
Transmission Date

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Letter no.16/2022 dated 03.03.2022 issued by respondent-Munger University after the petitioner's superannuation, seeking clarification on his M.A. improvement examination and date of eligibility for absorption, pursuant to which his retiral benefits continued to be withheld.¶23
Munger University · 03.03.2022
Prior proceeding
Controversies over services of employees of IV-phase constituent colleges led to writ applications in this Court, including C.W.J.C. No.4021 of 1997; the matter travelled to the Apex Court as S.L.P. No.6098 of 1997, disposed of by order dated 12.10.2004; a One Man Committee under Hon'ble Justice (Retd.) S.C. Agrawal was constituted, whose report favoured the petitioner, following which the University issued a regularization letter (Annexure-4).¶19
Prior proceeding
Unsuccessful candidates approached this Court again; the matter reached the Apex Court in SLP (C) No.12591 of 2010; by order dated 22.01.2013 a One Man Commission under Hon'ble Justice (Retd.) S.B. Sinha was constituted for the 4th phase colleges; it re-examined the petitioner's appointment, rejected all objections against him and affirmed his regularization.¶20
Prior proceeding
On the strength of the settled position, the petitioner was accorded promotion to the post of Assistant Professor and thereafter superannuated on 28.02.2021 after attaining 65 years.¶22
Prior proceeding
Upon superannuation the petitioner submitted all required documents for retiral benefits; in response to the University's clarification query he filed a detailed representation, placed on record as Annexure-11, which the Court found clarified the position.¶23
Prior proceeding
Finding of the S.C. Agrawal Commission as recorded by this Court: the petitioner was appointed Lecturer in History by order dated March 1981 without high second class Post Graduation qualification; he obtained his M.A. Degree with 55.7% marks on July 13, 1994 and became eligible for consideration from that date.¶30

Mukesh Kumar Sinha v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Sinha v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ratnesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Shambhu Kumar Vs The Compassionate Appointment Committee

Chandan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Shanichar Raut Vs The State of Bihar

Ram Saheli Sinha Vs The State of Bihar

Aditya Prasad Singh Vs The State of Bihar