Order Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, admittedly retired as a Demonstrator in Sindri College, Sindri, a constituent college of Vinobha Bhave University (V.B.U) on 29.2.2008. After 3 years of his retirement he has preferred the instant writ petition in August 2011, on the one hand seeking post retirement benefits as also scale of Demonstrator( Selection Grade) while on the other hand he is seeking quashing of the notification dated 19.2.2008(Annexure-6) of the respondent no.6, V.B.U, as per which he has been superannuated on reaching the age of 60 years. Further prayer has been made for declaration that petitioner, who was re-designated as Demonstrator should have been superannuated at the age of 62 years with all consequential benefits in terms of the relevant provisions of 2(v) of the Jharkhand Universities Act,2000. He has also sought for payment of salary for 2 years till the age of 62 as he was forced to superannuate at the age of 60. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notification dated 28.9.2007(Annexure-2) which has re-designated all the Laboratory Assistant / Technician / In-charge to the post of Demonstrator denied the status of Teachers to them. The said Clause 4 was challenged by several such re-designated Demonstrator in W.P.S. No. 4752 of 2008 (annexed as Annexure-3) in which vide judgment dated 27.1.2010 learned Single Judge of this Court quashed the said Clause 4 of the said notification as it was found to be infringing the right to equality. It is submitted that as a result thereof those who were re-designated as Demonstrator were to be treated as Lecturer. Reference has also been made to another judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.S. No. 1459 of 2010 and another analogous case where drawing inference from para 11 of the judgment rendered in W.P.S. No. 4752 of 2008, such re-designated petitioners have been treated to be Teaching staffs entitled to continue in service till the age of 62 years which is the age of retirement for Teaching staffs. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that retirement of the petitioner at the age of 60 years is arbitrary and premature and he is also entitled to the benefit of enhanced age and consequential benefits, thereof . 4. Respondent-Universities and the State Government have seriously contested the claim of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that retirement of the petitioner at the age of 60 years is arbitrary and premature and he is also entitled to the benefit of enhanced age and consequential benefits, thereof . 4. Respondent-Universities and the State Government have seriously contested the claim of the petitioner. It has been stated on their part that the petitioner retired in the year February, 2008 itself and is now trying to seek benefit of the judgment rendered in 2010 pursuant to the writ petition preferred by other persons for seeking such relief. It is further submitted that petitioner cannot avail the benefit of enhanced retirement age by virtue of said judgments as he has already retired in 2008 itself while the judgments were delivered in 2010. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record including the judgments relied upon by the petitioner. In the first place itself it is to be noted that petitioner did not appear to be seriously aggrieved upon superannuation at the age of 60 years on 29.2.2008 as no writ petition challenging the same was preferred for more than 3 years till certain judgments were rendered vide Annexure -3 and Annexure-7 in W.P.S. No. 4752 of 2008 vide judgment dated 27.1.2010 and W.P.S No. 1459 of 2010 & another analogous case vide judgment dated 26.7.2010 respectively. What was quashed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.S. No. 4752 of 2008 was Clause 4 of the notification dated 28.9.2007(Annexure-2), which offended Article 14 of the Constitution of India as re-designated Demonstrator were not being treated as Teaching Staff. Learned Single Judge, however, after quashing the said Clause 4 made a categorical observation at para 12 of the said judgment which are quoted herein below:- “It is made clearer by the learned counsel for the petitioners that their highest claim in this writ petition is that if they are duly qualified and eligible for appointment to the post of Lecturers, they must be considered and Clause 4 of the impugned order / notification dated 28th September, 2007, which is at Annexure-5 to the memo of petition, may be quashed and set aside. This contention has been accepted by this Court. This contention has been accepted by this Court. Clause 4 of the impugned order / notification dated 28th September, 2007, which is at Annexure 5 to the memo of petition, is hereby quashed and set aside, in view of the facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, and if the petitioners / redesignated Demonstrators are, otherwise eligible and qualified for appointment to the posts of Lecturers, I hereby direct the respondents to consider the claim of the these petitioners for appointment to the posts of Lecturer, subject to availability of the posts of Lecturers, as early as possible and practicable, preferably within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, passed by this Court”. 6. Perusal of the said direction gives a clear indication that even after quashing of the said particular clause, the respondents were directed to consider the claim of the individual petitioners for appointment to the post of Lecturer subject to the availability of post within a stipulated time. The status of lecturer was not automatically granted but was dependent upon exercise to be conducted by the respondents. In any case, whether the petitioners therein should have had the benefit of enhanced age or not was not the issue in the said judgment, though inferentially the said petitioners may have sought a claim of enhanced superannuation age as a Teaching Staff at the retirement age of 62 years. In any case the benefit of said judgments delivered after 2 years of the petitioner's retirement, cannot be conferred upon him, who admittedly had superannuated on February, 2008 itself. Prayers made in the instant writ petition in that respect also to some extent are inconsistent with each other since petitioner is seeking post retirement dues on his superannuation on 29.2.2008 and at the same time seeking benefit of enhanced age of 62 years. 7. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the respondents are justified in also pleading that if such plea on behalf of the petitioner is accepted, who has retired much earlier than any such judgment rendered in the case of other persons later on, it would amount to opening the Pandora Box. 7. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the respondents are justified in also pleading that if such plea on behalf of the petitioner is accepted, who has retired much earlier than any such judgment rendered in the case of other persons later on, it would amount to opening the Pandora Box. It is also otherwise well settled that those who remain at the fence and wait for the others to agitate their grievance, cannot be allowed later on to come forth and stake a claim for same benefit after the judgments are delivered in others' cases. There are several judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court on this point. In such circumstances, prayer of the petitioner for quashing of the superannuation as contained in Annexure-6 dated 19.2.2008 and claim for benefit of enhanced age of superannuation is not justified. 7. Petitioner, however, may be entitled for post retirement dues which are admissible on his superannuation. Petitioner is therefore allowed liberty to approach the respondent no.6, Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University with a representation through proper channel for seeking payment of post retirement dues duly supported with necessary facts and documents. On receipt of such representation, respondent no.6, Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University would consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law and take a decision thereupon within a period of 12 weeks, thereafter. Dependent upon such decision, if any requisition is to be sent for allotment of funds from State Government, necessary recommendation be made to the respondent no.2, the Director, Higher Education, HRD Dept., Jharkhand without any delay, thereafter. The respondent no.2, The Director, Higher Education, HRD Dept., Jharkhand would consider the recommendation and examine the claim of the petitioner and thereafter, release the necessary allotment towards admissible post retirement dues and other service dues within a reasonable time, preferably 6 week, thereafter for onward disbursement in favour of the petitioner. 8. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid manner.