ORDER 1. In the final stages of the preparation of the budget the Committee has submitted its third interim report seeking clarifications from this court on certain issues indicated therein. In the light of the Committee's report this court heard all concerned at length on November 17, 19, 22, 24 and 25, 1999. 2. Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad, Senior Advocate and Mr. A.K.P. Yadav, Secretary, FUSTAB appeared on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. Addl. Advocate General No. III and the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department appeared for the State. Mr. Prabhunath Roy appeared for the University and Mrs. Sheema Ali Khan for the non-teaching employees of the University. 3. On hearing counsel for the parties, this court is passing the following order on the third interim report submitted by the Committee. Re: Grant of the higher U.G.C. scale to Readers and Professors promoted not under the U.G.C. Merit Promotion Scheme but under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme or any other scheme of the State Government. 4. This issue has been discussed in Annexure 1 to the 3rd interim report of the committee sent to this court. On an examination of the relevant provisions and on a consideration of the position in the three Central Universities; namely, J.N.U., Delhi University and Banaras Hindu University, the committee came to the view that those Readers and Professors who were promoted from the post of Lecturer and Reader respectively under the merit promotion scheme or under the time bound promotion scheme of the State Government before 1.3.1989 would be entitled to the higher U.G.C. scale of Rs.3700-5700/- (in the case of Readers) and the scale of Rs.4500-7300/-(in the case of Professors) but those who were promoted as Readers or Professors on or after 1.3.1989 would get the lower scale of Rs.3000-5000/-(in the case of Readers) and the scale of Rs.4500-5700/- (in the case of Professors). (See concluding paras of Annexure-1 and para 1 of Annexure XI containing the summary of the conclusions arrived at by the Committee. 5. The view taken by the committee is quite acceptable to the petitioners, the Association of teachers. Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad, Senior Advocate and Mr. (See concluding paras of Annexure-1 and para 1 of Annexure XI containing the summary of the conclusions arrived at by the Committee. 5. The view taken by the committee is quite acceptable to the petitioners, the Association of teachers. Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad, Senior Advocate and Mr. A.K.P. Yadav, Secretary, Federation of University Service Teachers' Associations of Bihar appearing for the petitioners supported the view taken by the committee only seeking a slight clarification that the higher U.G.C. scale should be admissible not only to those who were in fact given promotion before 1.3.1989 but also to those to whom promotion became lawfully due before that date. 6. The State Government is opposed to the view taken by the committee on this issue. And according to it, regardless of the date of promotion those Readers and Professors who got promotion not under the merit promotion scheme of the U.G.C. but under the time bound promotion scheme of the State Government would only be, entitled to the lower scales, i.e., Rs.3000-5000 in the case of Readers and Rs.4500-7300 in the case of Professors. 7. On this issues I find myself in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Committee. 8. Before proceeding to examine the objections of the State Government to the grant of the higher U.G.C. scales of pay to Readers and Professors who were promoted under the time bound promotion scheme, it may be noted that this question was considered in some detail in the order, dated 4.3.1998 passed by this court on the 2nd interim report submitted by the committee in this case. That order is reported in 1998(2) PLJR 130 and paras 34 to 44 of the order are devoted to this question. At that stage the objection of the State Government was based on some interim direction issued by a bench of this court at Ranchi in CWJC No.3345/1994(R) which was a case relating to Ranchi University. Though interim in nature, the direction was made in general terms and on that basis the State Government took the stand that it was bound to follow it in case of teachers of all the Universities. Though interim in nature, the direction was made in general terms and on that basis the State Government took the stand that it was bound to follow it in case of teachers of all the Universities. Having taken note of the interim order passed by a bench of this Court at Ranchi and the stand of the State Government on the issue of the U.G.C. scales of pay on the basis of that order, this court proceeded to examine the case of the teachers in support of the grant of U.G.C. scales of pay to the Readers and Professors promoted under the time bound scheme. On a consideration of the case of the teachers, this court came to find and hold that the teachers' claim could not be said to be without substance but it refrained from making a final pronouncement as that would have gone contrary to the direction given by a bench of this court. Therefore, for the purpose of preparation of the budget, this court recommended the following course to the committee: "43. Under the circumstances, I would recommend to the committee to make budgetary provisions following the direction made by a bench of this court at Ranchi in CWJC No. 3345/1994(R). It must, however, be clarified that the direction made in that writ petition was merely an interim direction and it was given with the object of putting the financial affairs of the University in order so that the university employees may receive their full monthly salary regularly and in time. From the order dated 17.12.1979 passed in that case, it is evident that it does not decide the rights of the teachers promoted under the promotion Statutes to receive their salary in the U.G.C. scales of pay. Therefore, the committee while making the budget should make allowance that in case the matter is finally decided in favour of the teachers they would get their differential amount of pay without any delay." "44. The recommendation to the committee to make the budget in accordance with the direction given in CWJC No. 3345/1994(R) is of course a provisional arrangement till the rights of the parties are finally decided in by an appropriate Bench." 9. The recommendation to the committee to make the budget in accordance with the direction given in CWJC No. 3345/1994(R) is of course a provisional arrangement till the rights of the parties are finally decided in by an appropriate Bench." 9. It may further be noted that after the order, dated 4.3.1998 was passed in this case, some teachers' associations moved the Ranchi Bench in CWJC No. 3345/1994(R) and it is now an admitted position that by an order passed on 11.5.1998 the bench at Ranchi modified its earlier order, dated 17.12.1997 and gave direction to maintain, status quo as obtaining prior to that date. The interim direction, dated 17.12.1997 which earlier formed the basis of the State's objections to the grant of U.G.C. pay scales to the promotees under the time bound promotion scheme, thus, no longer subsists. It should, therefore, follow naturally to conclude the issue by making a pronouncement in the light of the earlier discussions and findings already arrived at in the order dated 4.3.1998 passed in this case and to endorse the view taken by the Committee on this issue. But in order to be completely fair to the State Government, I once again propose to briefly consider the objections raised on its behalf against the grant of the higher U.G.C. pay scales to the promotee teachers under the time bound promotion scheme. 10. The Secretary, Department of Higher Education who, in addition to the Addl. Advocate General No. III was heard on behalf of the State relied upon paras 18 and 19 of the Govt. letter no. 1044, dated 7.8.1989 in support of the submission that the higher U.G.C. scales of pay of Rs.3700-5700/- and Rs.4500-7300/- (to Readers and Professors respectively) could be allowed only to those teachers who opted for career advancement scheme for promotion as envisaged in paras 12 to 16 of the aforesaid Government letter and the teachers who exercised their option for promotion under the time bound promotion scheme would get the lower scales of pay of Rs.3000-5000/- and Rs.4500-5700/ -(in case of Readers and Professors respectively). The Secretary also made a reference to the letter, dated 15.2.1989 written by the Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Education, Government of India to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Human Resource Development, Govt. of Bihar. The Secretary also made a reference to the letter, dated 15.2.1989 written by the Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Education, Government of India to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Human Resource Development, Govt. of Bihar. By that letter the Central Government completely disowned any financial liability in case the Govt. of Bihar were to give option to the teachers to be governed by the time bound promotion scheme. 11. Though the provisions relied upon by the Secretary in support of his objections were specifically considered in the earlier order, dated 4.3.1998, I once again went through those provisions very carefully and find that what those provisions actually lay down is quite contrary to what is being suggested on behalf of the State. 12. By its letter no. 1044, dated 7.8.1989 the State Government stated that it was requested by the Govt. of India to consider the question of implementation of revised scales as recommended by the U.G.C. as a 'composite scheme' as envisaged under the letters of the Central Government. Clause 2 of this letter in so far as relevant for the issue is as follows: "The State Government have decided to introduce the revised scales of pay for teachers of the universities and degree colleges..........as recommended by the University Grants Commission as detailed below with effect from 1.1.1986, subject to the conditions laid down in Appendix I : FOR TEACHERS OF THE UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE: Designation Existing Revised scale of pay scale of pay introduced w.e.f. 1.1.86 1 . University 1500-2500 4500-150-5700-200-7300 Professor 2. Reader 1200-1900 3700-125-4950-150-5700 3. - - - - - - - 4. - - - - - - - 5. - - - - - - - 6. - - - - - - - 7. - - - - - - - 8. - - - - - - - (emphasis added) 13. Paras 18 and 19 of Appendix I to the letter relied upon by the Secretary are as follow: "18. The promotions made or due under any existing scheme before 1.3.1989 will not be re-opend. However, in such cases the benefit of revision will be available to teachers only from the date of their promotion. "19. Paras 18 and 19 of Appendix I to the letter relied upon by the Secretary are as follow: "18. The promotions made or due under any existing scheme before 1.3.1989 will not be re-opend. However, in such cases the benefit of revision will be available to teachers only from the date of their promotion. "19. The existing teachers in Universities and Colleges where the merit promotion scheme formulated by the U.G.C. in 1983 or any other promotion schemes formulated by the State Government are in operation, will have an option to continue to be governed by the provisions of those promotion schemes provided that they exercised their option in writing prior to their pay fixation under this scheme. They will also be entitled to the designation envisaged for various categories of teachers in those schemes, but the scales of pay will be as follows. (i) Lecturer Rs. 2200-4000/- (ii) Reader/Lecturer (Selection Grade) Rs. 3000-5000/- (iii) Professor Rs. 4500-5700.” (emphasis added) 14. It is significant to note that para 16 which stipulates that promotions made or due under any existing scheme (read time bound promotion schemes) before 1.3.1989 will not be reopened uses the expression 'the benefit of revision'. It is seen that in clause 2 of the letter, revised scales of pay for University Professors and Readers w.e.f. 1.1.1986 were fixed at Rs.4500-7300/- and Rs.3700-5700/respectively. There is, therefore, no scope for any doubt that all Readers and Professors who got promotions or whose promotions became due under the time bound promotion scheme before 1.3.1989 will get the benefit of revision, though only from the date of their promotion. It is further quite evident that the lower scales of pay envisaged under para 19 relate only to those teachers who exercised option to continue to be governed by the time bound promotion scheme even after 1.3.1989. 15. It is further quite evident that the lower scales of pay envisaged under para 19 relate only to those teachers who exercised option to continue to be governed by the time bound promotion scheme even after 1.3.1989. 15. I am, therefore, unable to sustain the objection of the State Government on this issue and accepting the view taken by the Committee I find and hold that the higher U.G.C. scales of pay of Rs.3700-5700/- and Rs.4500-7300/-(in the case of Readers and Professors respectively) will be admissible to all those Readers and Professors who got promotion or whose promotions were due under the time bound promotion scheme before 1.3.1989 and the lower scale of pay of Rs.3000-5000/- and Rs.4500-5700/- will apply to such Readers and Professors who got promotion or whose promotion became due under the time bound promotion scheme on or after 1.3.1989. 16. Consequently, I recall the recommendations made to the committee as contained in paras 43 and 44 of the order, dated 4.3.1998 passed in this case and suggest that budget should be prepared in the light of what is held hereinabove. Re: Grant of annual increment to lecturers who failed to acquire a post graduation degree within the time allowed after their appointment as lecturer under the Statutes dated 1.7.1977 and 12.12.1983. 17. This question arises as a result of the changes introduced from time 'to time in the minimum qualifications for appointment as lecturer. The requirement of a post graduate degree for appointment as lecturer in a constituent college was first introduced in the Statutes which received the Chancellor's approval on 1.7.1977. In those Statutes, the minimum qualifications for appointment as lecturer in the different faculties, leaving aside music and home science, were laid down as follows : "A First or High Second Class Master's degree or equivalent degree of a foreign University in the subject concerned, with consistently good academic record followed by a Ph. D or M. Phil. degree: Provided that in case a candidate with Ph. D or M. Phil. degree is not available or not found suitable, preference shall be given to a candidate having consistently good academic record, but such a candidate shall have to obtain Ph.D./M.Phil. degree within 5 years of the date of his appointment failing which he shall cease to earn any future increments until he fulfils the requirement. Provided also xx xx xx xx" (emphasis added) 18. degree within 5 years of the date of his appointment failing which he shall cease to earn any future increments until he fulfils the requirement. Provided also xx xx xx xx" (emphasis added) 18. Similar provisions were made for appointment in affiliated colleges and the Statutes dated 24.4.1978 laid down the following as the minimum qualifications for appointment as lecturer in an affiliated college: "(a) A consistently good academic record with 1st or High Second Class at the Master's degree, in the relevant subject, or an equivalent degree of a foreign university, and (b) a M. Phil. degree or recognised degree beyond the Master's level or published work indicating the capacity of a candidate for independent research work : Provided that if a candidate possessing the qualification as" at (b) above is not available or not considered suitable, the college, on the recommendation of the Commission, may appoint a person possessing a consistently good academic record on the condition that he will have to obtain a M. Phil. degree or a recognised Degree beyond the Master's level within 5 years of his appointment failing which he will not be able to earn future increments till he obtains that degree or gives evidence of equivalent Published work of a high standard: Provided xx xx xx xx xx" (emphasis added) 19. Clause 3 of the Statutes further made it obligatory for the lecturers already in service to obtain the prescribed qualification within 5 years from the date of the assent of the Statutes in case they did not possess the qualifications laid down in the Statutes failing which they would not be allowed any future increments till they had satisfied that condition. 20. The minimum qualifications prescribed under the Statutes dated 1.7.1977 (for lecturers in constituent colleges) and Statutes dated 24.4.1978 (for lecturers in affiliated colleges) were modified by the revised Statutes which received the approval of the Chancellor on 12.12.1983. The provisions of the revised Statutes in so far as relevant for the present are as follows : "Lecturer in the service of admitted college: (a) An M. Phil. The provisions of the revised Statutes in so far as relevant for the present are as follows : "Lecturer in the service of admitted college: (a) An M. Phil. degree or a recognised degree beyond the Master's level or published work indicating the capacity of a candidate for independent research work, and (b) Good academic record with at least Second Class (C in the seven point scale) Master's degree in a relevant subject from an Indian University or equivalent degree from a foreign University: Provided that xx xx xx xx Provided that if a candidate possessing the qualifications as at (a) above, is not available or not considered suitable, the college on the recommendation of the selection committee/College Service Commission may appoint a person possessing a good academic record on the condition that he will have to obtain an M. Phil. degree or a recognised degree beyond the Master's level within 8 years of his appointment failing which he will not be able to earn future increments till he obtains that degree or gives evidence of equivalent published work of high standard." (emphasis added) 21. A post graduate degree which was made an essential qualification for appointment as lecturer in a constituent college in the Statutes dated 1.7.1977 and in an affiliated college under Statutes dated 24.4.1978 and was retained in the revised Statutes dated 12.12.1983 was finally dispensed with as forming part of the essential qualifications but was retained only as additional qualification by an amendment in the revised Statutes approved by the Chancellor on 9.9.1988. The provisions regarding lecturer's qualifications following the amendment dated 9.9.1988 are as follows: "Lecturer's qualifications: (i) The minimum qualification required for appointment to the post of lecturer shall be Master's Degree in the relevant subject with at least 55% marks or its equivalent grade (B+) and uniformally good academic record. (ii) M. Phil. and Ph.D. degrees in the relevant subject may be considered as an additional qualification. (iii) The minimum qualification shall not be relaxed even in respect of candidates who have research degrees like M. Phil.; Ph.D." 22. Thus, the position developed like this. The Statutes dated 1.7.1977 made a post graduate degree such as Ph. D or M. Phil. as part of the essential qualifications for appointment as lecturer but provided that in case a candidate with Ph. D. or M. Phil. Thus, the position developed like this. The Statutes dated 1.7.1977 made a post graduate degree such as Ph. D or M. Phil. as part of the essential qualifications for appointment as lecturer but provided that in case a candidate with Ph. D. or M. Phil. degree was not available or was not found suitable, a candidate with a Master' degree could be appointed but such a candidate was required to obtain Ph.D./M. Phil. degree within five years from the date of his appointment failing which he would he would cease to earn any future increments until he fulfilled the requirement. The revised statutes, dated 12.12.1983 relaxed the period for obtaining a doctor's degree and extended it to a period of eight years from the date of his appointment failing which he would not be able to earn future increments until he fulfilled the requirement. 23. Finally the amendment introduced in the revised Statutes on 9.9.1988 did away with a degree beyond the Master's level as being part of the essential qualification and retained it simply as additional qualification. 24. A question, therefore, arises regarding the entitlement to earn annual increments of those lecturers view were appointed under the Statutes, dated 1.7.1977 and the revised Statutes, dated 12.12.1983 and who failed to acquire a degree of Ph. D. or M. Phil. within the respective periods provided under the two Statutes. 25. According to the teachers the requirement of a degree beyond the master' level having been done away with as being part of the essential qualifications for lecturer on 9.9.1988, the bar against annual increments imposed by the two earlier Statutes must be deemed to have been lifted and after the amendment, dated 9.9.1988 there would be no difficulty in granting annual increments even to those teachers who were appointed under the Statutes dated 1.7.1977 and the revised Statute dated 12.12.1988 and who failed to acquire a degree beyond the Master's level. 26. The State takes the opposite stand and it is pointed out on its behalf that the amendment introduced in the revised statutes on 9.9.1988 could only be prospective in operation and would cover only the lecturers appointed after that date. 26. The State takes the opposite stand and it is pointed out on its behalf that the amendment introduced in the revised statutes on 9.9.1988 could only be prospective in operation and would cover only the lecturers appointed after that date. The amendment introduced on 9.9.1988 being prospective in operation would not apply to lecturers appointed prior to that date under the revised Statutes, dated 12.12.1983 or even earlier under the Statutes, dated 1.7.1977 and the lecturers appointed under those two Statutes would not be relieved of the statutory obligation incurred by them at the time of their appointment in terms of the Statutes then in force. Therefore, according to the State those lecturers who were appointed under the Statutes dated 1.7.1977 or the revised Statutes dated 12.12.1983 and who failed to obtain a post graduate degree within the period specified under the two Statutes would not be entitled to get any annual increments till they acquired that qualification notwithstanding the amendment introduced in the revised Statutes on 9.9.1988. 27. The committee seems to have upheld the stand taken by the State Government as would appear from the concluding portion of Annexure II, and paras 2, 3 and 4 of Annexure XI (summary). 28. With respect I am unable to see eye to eye with the committee on this issue and, in my view, in giving annual increments to the lecturers who were appointed before 9.9.1988 and who failed to acquire a degree the Master's level in terms of the two earlier Statutes, there is no question of any retrospective operation of the amendments introduced in the revised Statutes on 9.9.1988. The position as it appears to me is simply like this. It is axiomatic that two sets of essential qualifications for appointment to any post cannot co-exist at the same time and, thus, there can be only one set of minimum qualifications for appointment as lecturer. With effect from 9.9.1988 a post graduate degree is only an additional qualification and ceases to be part of the minimum qualifications for appointment as lecturer. That being the position, lecturers who were appointed prior to 9.9.1988 cannot be penalised by withholding annual increments for their failure to acquire what is no longer part of the minimum qualifications for appointment to the post but is only an additional qualification. That being the position, lecturers who were appointed prior to 9.9.1988 cannot be penalised by withholding annual increments for their failure to acquire what is no longer part of the minimum qualifications for appointment to the post but is only an additional qualification. By virtue of the amendment, dated 9.9.1988 the earlier lecturers will be given annual increments not for any period prior to 9.9.1988 but only prospectively and, thus, the question of any prospective operation of the amended Statutes does not arise. 29. I am supported in my view by a decision of the Supreme Court in Mr. Boucher Pierre Andre vs. Superintendent, Central Jail Tihar, New Delhi and another, AIR 1975 SC 164 . In that decision the Supreme Court held that the benefit to set of pre conviction detention period against the term of imprisonment conferred by Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 was also available where the sentence was imposed before the commencement of the Code to reduce the un-served portion of the sentence and that in so construing the Section it was not given any retrospective effect for it did not affect the sentence already undergone but affected only that part of the sentence which remained to be served in future. The relevant observations in the decision are as follows : "This construction of the Section does not offend against the principle which requires that unless the legislative intent is clear and compulsive, no retrospective operation should be given to a Statute. On this interpretation, the Section is not given any retrospective effect. It does not seek to set at naught the conviction already recorded against the accused person. The conviction remains intact and unaffected and so does the sentence already undergone. It is only the sentence, in so far as it yet remains to be undergone, that is reduced. The Section operates prospectively on the sentence which yet remains to be served and curtails it by setting off the period of detention undergone by the accused person during the investigation, inquiry or trial of the case. Any argument based on the objection against giving retrospective operation is, therefore, irrelevant." 30. I am further of the view that by introducing 55% as the minimum marks in the Master's degree examination in the amendment made in the revised Statutes on 9.9.1988 no significant change was brought about. Any argument based on the objection against giving retrospective operation is, therefore, irrelevant." 30. I am further of the view that by introducing 55% as the minimum marks in the Master's degree examination in the amendment made in the revised Statutes on 9.9.1988 no significant change was brought about. It is to be noted here that the revised statutes before the amendment, dated 9.9.1988 required good academic record with at least 2nd Class (C in the seven point scale) Master's degree. Now, the expression "good academic record" for a candidate of university lecture without a Ph.D. degree was explained as follows: "A candidate without a Ph. D. degree who possesses a high 2nd Class Master's degree and 2nd Class in the Bachelor's Degree. 31. Similarly for a candidate of college lecturers not holding a M. Phil. degree the expression 'good academic record' means as follows : "A candidate not holding a M. Phil. degree or a recognised degree beyond the Master's level who possessed a high 2nd Class Master's degree and a 2nd Class in 1st degree (B.A.., B.Sc., B.Com.) examination; or “(ii) a candidate not holding an M. Phil. degree or a recognised degree beyond Master's level, but possessing a second Class Master's degree should have obtained a 1st Class in the first degree (B.A./B.Sc./B.Com.) examination." 32. A high 2nd class can certainly not be less than 55%. I am, therefore, satisfied that the mentioning of 55% as the minimum marks did not bring about any significant change in so far as the Master's qualification was concerned for appointment as lecturers. 33. On the basis of the discussions made above, the position that would emerge is as follows. 34. A lecturer appointed in a constituent college under the Statutes dated 1.7.1977 or in an affiliated college under the Statutes dated 24.4.1978 would cease to earn annual increments after five years in case he failed to acquire a degree beyond the Master's level. The increments, thus, stopped will be restored on coming into force of the revised Statutes on 12.12.1983 but would again be stopped after three years on failure to acquire a degree beyond the Master's level and the annual increments will then be restored only with effect from 9.9.1988. The increments, thus, stopped will be restored on coming into force of the revised Statutes on 12.12.1983 but would again be stopped after three years on failure to acquire a degree beyond the Master's level and the annual increments will then be restored only with effect from 9.9.1988. The increments lost in the mean while will neither be restored nor would the concerned lecturer be entitled to any notional fixation of pay, taking into account the lost increments. Re: The benefit of past service to temporary lecturers who were absorbed service under the three absorption statutes. 35. The next issue raised in the Committee's third interim report relates to the determination of the date from which temporary lecturers absorbed in service under the three Absorption Statutes would be deemed to be in continuous service. In other words, whether or not the temporary lecturers absorbed in the service under the three Absorption Statutes would be entitled to the benefit of their past service, prior to the date of issuance of the respective Absorption Statutes under which their services were absorbed. The determination of the date from which a lecturer would be deemed to be in continuous service is obviously of great importance as that would form the basis not only for granting annual increments but also for computing the period of qualifying service for promotion as Reader and then as Professor under the time bound promotion Statutes. Allowing the benefit of service prior to the date of issuance of the Absorption Statute under which a temporary teacher was absorbed in service would mean not only giving him the benefit of several annual increments but also enabling him to complete the qualifying years of service for promotion under the time bound promotion scheme much in advance. This would have a direct effect on the salary and emoluments lawfully admissible to teachers who were absorbed under the three absorption Statutes and thus would have a direct impact on the University's budget being prepared by the Committee. 36. The Committee has given considerable attention to this issue which is discussed in Annexures III to V of the third interim report and the conclusions arrived at are stated in paragraphs 5 to 9 of Annexure XI of the report. 37. 36. The Committee has given considerable attention to this issue which is discussed in Annexures III to V of the third interim report and the conclusions arrived at are stated in paragraphs 5 to 9 of Annexure XI of the report. 37. Before proceeding further it may be noted that this was considered in some detail in the order dated 4.3.1998 passed by this court on the second interim report submitted by the Committee. That order is reported in 1998 (2) PLJR 103. At that stage this court, in the light of the second interim report submitted by the Committee had framed, amongst others, the following two issues: (i) In the light of the three Absorption Statutes what would be the relevant date of the grant of annual increments to lecturers absorbed in regular service under those Statutes? (ii) In the light of the Promotion Statutes what would be the relevant date to reckon the period of qualifying service on completion of which an individual lecturer or Reader would become entitled for promotion to the post of Reader or University Professor as the case may be? 38. On the first issue it was held that in terms of the Government letter, dated 16.7.1982 the temporary lecturers whose services were regularised will get the benefit of seniority and annual increments from the date of their appointment in the affiliated colleges but they would not get the differential payments on the basis of annual increments prior to the period 1.7.1981. On the second issue it was held that the temporary lecturers whose services were regularised will be entitled to the benefit of their past service for computing their qualifying service for promotion under the time bound promotion Statute. 39. It needs to be clarified, however, that the court had come to the aforesaid findings on the premise that at the time of their absorption in service, the temporary lecturers were holding their respective posts legally and validly. 40. But from the third interim report of the Committee, it appears that in course of preparation of the budget it came to light that a number of teachers whose services were absorbed under the three Absorption Statutes cannot be said to be legally and validly in service on the dates on which their services were regularised under the Absorption Statutes. But from the third interim report of the Committee, it appears that in course of preparation of the budget it came to light that a number of teachers whose services were absorbed under the three Absorption Statutes cannot be said to be legally and validly in service on the dates on which their services were regularised under the Absorption Statutes. It is pointed out that though for the purposes of absorption their case might have been covered by the provisions of the absorption statutes, it could not be said that on the date of their absorption their continuance in service was legal and valid in terms of the provisions of Sections 57 and 58 of the Bihar State Universities Act. 41. After making an elaborate discussion on the issue the Committee has arrived at conclusions which are stated in paragraphs, 5 to 9 of Annexure XI of the third interim report which are as follows: "5. Those teachers who had been appointed in a regular manner after following prescribed procedure and had not been absorbed on substantive basis, shall on absorption under one of the three Statutes mentioned above would be entitled for counting their services from the date of their first appointment as a temporary teacher, both for the purpose of calculation of their entitlement as also for merit or time bound promotion. "6. Those teachers who were not holding any post in the regular manner on the date of their absorption but had been factually absorbed under one or three Statutes would be entitled to count their services for the above two purposes from the following date : "(a) absorption under the first Statute 30.6.77 (being the date of issuance of Statutes) "(b) absorbed under the Second Statute-1.1.81 (being the date of issuance of Statutes) "(c) absorbed under the third Statute 28.2.82 (being the date of issuance of Statute). "7. In some cases wrong date of absorption has been given by the University/Commission. In such cases correct date, according to the discussion, as made above, has been given for calculation of the entitlement and promotion. "8. For the purpose of determining the eligibility of teachers for time bound or merit promotion to the post of Teachers/Professors correct date according to law has been taken into consideration. After determining the correct date, calculation has been made on the basis of those dates for the reasons as explained earlier. "9. "8. For the purpose of determining the eligibility of teachers for time bound or merit promotion to the post of Teachers/Professors correct date according to law has been taken into consideration. After determining the correct date, calculation has been made on the basis of those dates for the reasons as explained earlier. "9. In some cases the University or the Commission has revised the date of promotion, after having fixed a later date earlier, for reasons explained wrong shifting of date has not been taken into consideration." 42. The State Government supports the aforesaid view taken by the Committee but the petitioners are opposed to it and according to the petitioners all temporary lecturers whose services were absorbed must be given the benefit of their past service for the purpose of annual increments and for the purpose of computing the period of qualification service of promotion under the three promotion Statutes. 43. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department strongly argued that though the question of absorption of a temporary lecturer might be determined on the basis of the provisions contained in the three absorption Statutes, for the purpose of giving him the benefit of past service it must be seen whether the service prior to the absorption was legal and valid. It was contended that there Statutes were not intended to allow the benefit of past service to the lecturers being absorbed in service and the Court may not to allow them the benefit of past service at least in cases where the period of 'service' prior to the date of issuance of the Statutes is found to be patently illegal and invalid, being in violation of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Statutes. The Secretary further submitted that in this regard a distinction must be made and the benefit of past service may be allowed only to such temporary teachers who at the time of their absorption in service were holding the post legally, validly and in terms of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Statutes. But the benefit of past service must not be allowed to those who at the time of their absorption in service could not be said to be holding the post of lecturer in any lawful manner. But the benefit of past service must not be allowed to those who at the time of their absorption in service could not be said to be holding the post of lecturer in any lawful manner. The Secretary further submitted that though for the purpose of absorption the necessary qualifications were spelled out in the three absorption Statutes, the legality and validity of their past service could only be tested with reference to the previsions of Sections 57, 57 A and 58 of the Bihar State Universities Act and Section 11 of the Bihar College Service Commission Act, 1976 and in case the concerned teacher at the time of his absorption under any of the three absorption Statutes was found to be present in the college not in terms of the provisions of the aforesaid two Act, his 'service' prior to his absorption could only be held to be illegal and invalid and in such cases the concerned teacher could not be allowed the benefit of past service for computing the period of qualifying service for promotion under the time bound promotion scheme. The Secretary further explained that the true object and purpose of the letter, dated 16.7.1982 issued by the Education Commissioner cum Secretary, Government of Bihar was to meet the inequities arising due to the delays made by the different authorities under the three absorption Statutes and the direction given in the aforesaid letter was intended to cover only such temporary lecturers who at the time of their absorption were in service in a lawful manner. The object and purpose of the letter was never to extend the benefit of past service also to persons who at the time of their absorption were not holding the post of temporary lecturer in a legal or valid manner. 44. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the State and the case made out by the Committee in Annexure III to V of its third interim report. 45. Both Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad, Senior Advocate and Mr. A.K.P. Yadav, Secretary, FUSTAB were unable to give any effective answers to the objections raised on behalf of the State on this issue. 45. Both Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad, Senior Advocate and Mr. A.K.P. Yadav, Secretary, FUSTAB were unable to give any effective answers to the objections raised on behalf of the State on this issue. And I am, therefore, of the view that for the purpose of preparation of budget the objections raised by the State must be sustained and the budget should be prepared on the lines indicated by the Committee in Paragraphs 5 to 9 of Annexure XI of its third interim report. 46. It is needed to clarify here that this court is not unconscious that the concerned teachers are not present before the court individually. But their cases are being very effectively advocated by the petitioner which is the association of the teachers of the University. 47. Moreover in this order this court is not making any adjudication on the rights of any individual teachers. In this case the only concern of the court is to have the committee prepare a realistic budget for the University for want of which there is a state of financial anarchy in the University for more than a decade, causing unmitigated sufferings to all its employees. Therefore, it must always be borne in mind that the directions/ recommendations in this case are made with the sole object of preparation of the budget and they are not to be deemed as an adjudication on the rights of any individual employee (teaching and non-teaching) of the University. 48. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this court is prima facie satisfied that it would be unreasonable and unfair to burden the State Government with the additional financial liability resulting from giving the benefit of past service to such of the teachers who were not holding any post in a regular manner at the time of their absorption. The Committee is accordingly advised to proceed with the preparation of budget on the lines indicated by it in paragraphs 5 to 9 of Annexure XI of its third interim report. 48A. The Committee is accordingly advised to proceed with the preparation of budget on the lines indicated by it in paragraphs 5 to 9 of Annexure XI of its third interim report. 48A. However, in all such cases where, in the preparation of budget, the dates of promotion to the next higher post gets altered on account of denial of the benefit of past service, the University shall make a report without any delay to the concerned authority, making a request to re-determine the correct and lawful date of promotion of the affected teacher in the light of the relevant provisions of the Acts and the Statutes. It will also be open to the affected teacher to approach the concerned authority (ies) directly and make- a request for re-determination of the date (s) of his promotions (s). On such a report/ request being made the concerned authority (ies) will re-consider the matter in the light of the Committee's report and the State's objections and take a fresh decision within three months from the date of receipt of the report/request submitted by the University. Any party, be it the concerned individual or the State, in case aggrieved by the fresh determination of the correct date(s) of promotion(s) will be entitled to take recourse to legal remedies. The date(s) so determined will be reflected in the future budgets of the University. Re. : Colleges made constituent in the fourth phase. 49. The next issue relates to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the colleges taken over and made constituent in the 4th phase. In the Bihar University, of which the budget is being prepared by the committee, there are only four such colleges. It may be noted here that the question of regularisation of service of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the 4th phase constituent colleges came to this court in Bihar Rajya M.S.A.S.K.K. Mahasangh Vs. State of Bihar (CWJC No.4021 of 1995). A Bench of this court allowed the writ petition filed by the Mahasangh and gave certain directions to the Universities by judgment and order, dated 31.1.1997 reported in 1997 (1) PLJR 533 . Paragraph 26 of the judgment contains the direction issued to the Universities which is as follows: "26. State of Bihar (CWJC No.4021 of 1995). A Bench of this court allowed the writ petition filed by the Mahasangh and gave certain directions to the Universities by judgment and order, dated 31.1.1997 reported in 1997 (1) PLJR 533 . Paragraph 26 of the judgment contains the direction issued to the Universities which is as follows: "26. In that view of the matter, this court directs the Universities who are parties to this proceeding to take steps in accordance with the communication of the State Government which is at Annexure 5 of the writ petition in the light of the observation made in this judgment and in accordance with the provisions of Section 4(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 on today will continue." 50. The Universities, including the Bihar University, is yet to take a decision in the light of the direction issued by this court. 51. In these circumstances, the Committee has rightly pointed out that the issue of the teaching and the non-teaching employees of the constituent colleges of the 4th phase can be resolved for the purpose of the budget only on an adhoc basis. The Committee in Annexure VI of its 3rd interim report has expressed its view on this issue as follows: "In the light of aforesaid decision, I have for the purpose of budgetary provisions which, it may be repeated is only on ad-hoc basis, treated the teachers of such Colleges to have been in regular service from the date of take over that is 30.04.1986. It may, however, be stated that a large number of teachers who have been appointed before that date were not holding any post in a regular manner, mainly because of the fact that they were neither appointed on the recommendation of U.G.C. nor concurrence had been taken in their appointment made by the Governing Body of the College, or if concurrence had been taken it had expired before 30.04.1986. It may be pointed out that in respect of similarly situated teachers of the Colleges of the earlier phases, three statutes were made in order to absorb them in the University services it appears to me that in respect of teachers of colleges in the 4th phase, after Government decision in this regard, Statutes will have to be male or similar line as earlier three Statutes referred to by me in earlier annexures. It may further be clarified that so far as such of the teachers who have been appointed in a regular manner the date of their entitlement has been taken to be from the date of their first appointment. "So far as the non-teaching staff is concerned their emoluments has been fixed on the same pattern as have been done for non-teaching staff of the Colleges in the earlier phases after taking into consideration the letter of the State Government bearing No. 25/C dated 12.02.90." (emphasis added) 52. Having regard to the material facts and circumstances this court finds itself in complete agreement with the view expressed by the Committee and recommends that the budget may be prepared on the lines indicated by the Committee. Re: Regularisation of the fifty eight demonstrators. 53. The 3rd interim report of the Committee next takes up the case of 58 demonstrators who were regularised in service on the basis of the resolution of the University Syndicate, dated 12.10.1982. The Committee points out that the resolution of the Syndicate was apparently based on the two letters issued on 15.11.1979 and 11.9.1980 by the Deputy Secretary to the Governor of Bihar. Further, on a consideration of the material facts and circumstances the Committee expresses the view that the presentation of the case by the University before the Chancellor in respect of the concerned demonstrators was far from accurate and the Chancellor was, thus, led to issue the guidelines for regularisation of the services of the demonstrators in question as contained in the letters dated 15.11.1979 and 11.9.1980 on the basis of incorrect facts. From the discussion made by the Committee on this issue as contained in Annexure VII of its 3rd interim report it becomes clear that the finger of accusation points no less at the University than the concerned individuals. From the discussion made by the Committee on this issue as contained in Annexure VII of its 3rd interim report it becomes clear that the finger of accusation points no less at the University than the concerned individuals. On a consideration of the issue the Committee has taken the view that the regularisation in service of the 58 demonstrators was wholly illegal and invalid creating an unlawful financial demand on the Government. However, taking a balanced view of the matter, the Committee has not lost sight of the fact that the concerned 58 demonstrators have now been working in the University decision. In this regard the Committed has made the following observation: "The only point in their favour is that the aforesaid 58 Demonstrators, have been working in the University for about 17 years on the basis of University decision. If their services are to be legally regularised, perhaps, Statutes similar to the Statutes for regularising services of Lecturers would have to be made, and their promotion, if any will have to be in the same manner as was the case with lecturers." 54. In these facts the Committee has not taken any decision in respect of the 58 concerned demonstrators and has sought this court's advice as to what is to be done with regard to them in the preparation of the-budget. 55. On going through the discussion made by the Committee (Annexure VII of its interim report) and on hearing counsel for the parties, I am prima facie satisfied that the Committee has rightly come to the finding that the so called regularisation of service of the concerned 58 demonstrators was quite invalid and it was the result of the failure of the University to properly represent before the Chancellor the correct facts of the case. But having regard to the inherent limitation of the present proceeding I would refrain from making a final pronouncement on this issue. It must always be borne in mind that the present proceeding is concerned with the preparation of the budget for the University and it cannot be converted into an ex parte proceeding for removing the concerned 58 demonstrators from service. Having regard to this limitation in the scope of this proceeding I would recommend that the Committee should make necessary provision in the budget on the basis of the last pay drawn by the concerned 58 demonstrators. Having regard to this limitation in the scope of this proceeding I would recommend that the Committee should make necessary provision in the budget on the basis of the last pay drawn by the concerned 58 demonstrators. It is, however, made clear that making budgetary provision for them will not give them any equitable right and it will be open to the Government or the University to take appropriate steps in respect of the concerned demonstrators in accordance with law. Re : Time bound promotion to non-teaching employees. 56. The 3rd interim report of the Committee next deals (in Annexure VIII) with the issue of time bound promotion to non-teaching employees. In connection with this issue it may be noted that the question of admissibility of time bound promotion to the non-teaching employees of the Universities came up for consideration before this court in CWJC No. 12502 of 1993. By judgment and order, dated 24.9.1996 a learned single Judge of this court gave the following directions: "The respondent State of Bihar and the authorities are directed to come out with time bound promotion policy immediately and make the same applicable with respect to the non-teaching employees of different University, as is provided in paragraph 11 of Finance Department's Resolution No. 10770 dated 30 December, 1981. Such notification is to be issued within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. The respondent State of Bihar and its authorities are also directed to release such fund in favour of one or other University, including Patna University, as they are requisition, so that they may release the consequential benefits of arrears of salary to their employees by virtue of such first time bound promotion and second time bound promotion." 57. Against the judgment passed by the learned single Judge, L.P.A. No. 1255 of 1995 has been preferred which is pending before this court. Admitted position, however, is that though no stay is granted in the L.P.A., the State Government has not issued any notification as directed by the writ court. The Committee has, therefore, rightly pointed out that the concerned officials in the State Government clearly seem to be in contempt of this court. Admitted position, however, is that though no stay is granted in the L.P.A., the State Government has not issued any notification as directed by the writ court. The Committee has, therefore, rightly pointed out that the concerned officials in the State Government clearly seem to be in contempt of this court. However, I need not go into the question of contempt any further as the Secretary, Higher Education in course of his submissions on this issue clearly stated that the Government was completely agreeable that subject to the decision in L.P.A. No. 1255 of 1995 the scheme of time bound promotion as applicable to the Government employees may be applied mutatis mutandis to the non-teaching employees of 'the Universities for the period 1.4.1981 to 1.1.1996 when it was in force in the Government. The Committee is accordingly advised to proceed with the preparation of the budget in the light of the Government stand as indicated here and on the lines suggested by the Committee in Annexure VIII of its 3rd interim report. Re : Staffing pattern and compassionate appointments. 58. The next two issues pertain to (i) posts on the basis of staffing pattern and (ii) appointment on compassionate grounds. I have carefully gone through the discussions made by the Committee in Annexures IX and X respectively on the aforesaid two issues and on hearing Mr. Ganga Prasad Roy, A.A.G. III and the Secretary, Department of Higher Education appearing for the State of Bihar and Mrs. Sheema Ali Khan, learned counsel appearing for the non-leaching employees, I am satisfied that the view taken by the Committee on the aforesaid two issues is perfectly reasonable and proper. I respectfully endorse the course of action suggested by the Committee and recommend that the budget be prepared on the lines indicated by the Committee in Annexures IX and X of the 3rd interim report relating to the aforesaid two issues. 59. This court expects that the budget will now be soon finalised in the light of this order. 60. Let two copies of this order be sent immediately to Mr. Justice S. Sarwal Ali. Let one copy of the order be similarly given each to Mr. Addl. Advocate General No. III, counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the University.