ORDER Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for the following relief (s). i. To quash the office order no.657 dated 7.8.2003 (Annexure-3) issued under the signature of Director, BIT, Sindri, Dhanbad (Respondent No. 3), whereby the petitioner has been retired from service on 31.01.2004 on his attaining the age of 58 years. ii. To direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years. iii. To reinstate the petitioner in service until he attains the age of 60 years and to pay him arrears of salaryand other allowances. iv. To stay the operation of the impugned order dated 7.8.2003. 3. The petitioner was appointed in the post of Instructor in the Magadh Engineering College, Gaya. His initial appointment was made by the Managing Committee of the college which at the relevant time, was a private institution. 4. Subsequently, the State of Bihar enacted the Bihar State Engineering and Pharmacy Teaching Institute (Management and Control) Act, 1982. For the purpose of taking over the private institutes, a committee was constituted in the year 1984 and pursuant to the recommendation of the committee, several private Engineering colleges including Magadh Engineering College, Gaya, was taken over by the Government in the year 1986 under the Bihar Ordinance No. 37 of 1986. On and from the date of taking over, the assets and property of the institute, stood transferred to the Universities of the State of Bihar and all the teaching and non-teaching staff of the private Engineering Colleges, ceased to be the employees of the private colleges from the date of vesting of the colleges under the State Government. 5. In course of time, the teaching and non-teaching staff of the taken over private colleges came to be governed by the service conditions as prescribed by the Rules of the State Government. 6. Late, several employees working as Foremen / Senior Junior Instructors in Bhagalpur Engineering Collegefiled a writ application vide CWJC No. 7160 of 1991 before the Patna High Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus upon the respondent State of Bihar for declaring the post held by the Instructor / Foreman as a teaching post and for payment of pay scale of teaching staff as per the recommendation of the University Grants Commission and / or All India Council of Technical Education. 7. 7. While disposing of the writ application, this court by its order dated 2.11.1995, held that the post of Instructor (Senior and Junior) were teaching posts and had directed the State to treat the Instructors of the Engineering Colleges in the category of teaching staff and to extend them the benefits accruing there from. 8. The appeal preferred by the State against the aforesaid order of the Single Judge, was dismissed and likewise, the Special Leave Petition filed by the State Government against the orders passed by the Division Bench, was also dismissed. 9. Consequently, the Government of Bihar vide its notification no. 1342 dated 15.7.1998, had declared the post of Instructor as teaching post. This was followed by another Circular no. 2448/Patna dated 12.12.1998 issued under the signature of the Director, Science and Technology, Government of Bihar, Patna, declaring therein that Government had taken the decision on Principle to treat the Instructor as members of the teaching staff and entitling them to the benefits of the scale recommended by the University Grants Commission for teachers. 10. After the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar, the Bihar Universities Act came to be adopted by the State of Jharkhand. 11. The grievance of the petitioner is that though, it was declared that the post of Instructor is a teaching post and though the State Government had fixed the age of superannuation of the teachers at 60 years, yet, by the impugned order, the petitioner has been made to retire on his completing the age of 58 years. 12. In their counter-affidavit, the respondent State had denied and disputed the claim of the petitioner. The stand taken by the respondents is that by virtue of the impugned order, the petitioner had already superannuated from service and it was after his superannuation, he had filed the present writ application. Furthermore, the petitioner had himself accepted his retirement and had also applied for payment of his retiral dues and therefore, he is not entitled to the reliefs claimed. The further stand taken by the respondents is that the post of Instructor which the petitioner was holding, was a non- teaching post and he was rightly retired on his attaining the age of 58 years. Furthermore, the petitioner had not produced any document or circular or notification which would declare or show the post of Instructor was equivalent to that of teacher or demonstrator. Furthermore, the petitioner had not produced any document or circular or notification which would declare or show the post of Instructor was equivalent to that of teacher or demonstrator. 13. The stand taken by the respondents, appears to be totally misconceived and contrary to the ratio decided by this court in the case of Deonandan Prasad Sinha vs. State of Bihar vide CWJC No. 7160 of 1991 and the judgment of this court in the case of Jagdish Yadav vs. State of Bihar & others vide CWJC No. 3280 of 1997. 14. In the case of Deonandan Prasad Sinha (Supra), the learned Single Judge while relying upon the ratiodecided by the Division Bench in the former case vide CWJC No. 7090 of 1980 and also basing reliance upon the letter of Government of India dated 12.4.1960 and also finding support from the several notifications issued both by the Government of India in the Department of Ministry of Scientific Research and then of the Government of Bihar, had held that the post of Instructor (Senior & Junior) in the Government Engineering Colleges are teaching post. The judgment of the Single Bench was confirmed by the Division Bench as also by the Supreme Court. These facts are not disputed by the respondents and neither can the respondent State feign ignorance about such law as declared in the aforementioned judgment. Admittedly, the State Government had decided to fix the age of superannuation of the teachers of the Engineering Colleges at the age of 60 years. The post of Instructor having been declared as teaching post, the benefits of the decision of the State Government in respect of the age of superannuation as extended to the teachers of the Engineering colleges, cannot be denied to the Instructors. 15. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order whereby the petitioner was ordered to superannuate at the age of 58 years, is illegal and arbitrary and cannot be sustained. The same is hereby quashed. 16. 15. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order whereby the petitioner was ordered to superannuate at the age of 58 years, is illegal and arbitrary and cannot be sustained. The same is hereby quashed. 16. The petitioner having already attained the age of 60 years during the pendency of this writ application, the concerned authorities of the respondents shall assess the salary and other financial benefits to which the petitioner would have been entitled, had he been allowed to continue in service till 60 years of his age and, within two months from the date of this order and pay the assessed amount to the petitioner within one month from the date of such assessment. In the event the amount is not assessed and paid within the period stipulated above, such amount shall carry interest, to be paid by the respondents, @9% per annum, computed from the date after lapse of the stipulated period of three months, till the date of final payment. Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the respondent State.