JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for following reliefs; (A) For direction for fixation, calculation and payment of the prescribed salary in 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th U.G.C pay scale with all admissible, benefits and arrear thereof w.e.f. 07.08.1980, 01.01.1986, 01.01.1996 and 01.01.2006, respectively; (B) For payment of prescribed pay scales with all allowances during the period 17.08.1980 till date; (C) For any/all other benefits, the petitioner may be found under the provisions of statute law and equity. 3. The facts as narrated in the instant writ application is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Lecturer on 26.07.1978 (Annexure-2) in the Department of English in S.P.M. College, Udantpuri, Biharsharif, Nalanda against vacant and sanctioned post; and, appointment of the petitioner in the said College was concurred by U.G.C vide its Letter No.1882 dated 13.12.1979 (Annexure-2/1) for a period of one year from the date of appointment of the petitioner. The further case of the petitioner is that while the petitioner was in service at S.P.M, College, an advertisement was issued by Marwari College, Ranchi inviting applications for appointment of Lecturers in English, History, etc. and, pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Lecturer in the Department of the English in Marwari College and through a valid selection procedure, which was preceded by an advertisement and interview, the Governing Body of Marwari College, Ranchi selected the petitioner to be appointed on the post of Lecturer in the Department of English, vide its decision dated 05.05.1980 (Annexure-4/1). Pursuant thereto, the petitioner, vide letter dated 8th May, 1980 (Annexure-5) was appointed as Lecturer in the Department of English on the vacant sanctioned post in Marwari College, where he joined on 17.06.1980. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner, vide letter dated 8th May, 1980 (Annexure-5) was appointed as Lecturer in the Department of English on the vacant sanctioned post in Marwari College, where he joined on 17.06.1980. The further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s service in Marwari College was concurred by University Grant Commission (for short ‘U.G.C’), Patna vide Memo No. 996 dated 24.09.1980 (Annexure-7) for a period of one year from the date of his appointment, or for a period of three months from the date of recommendation and appointment being made by Marwari College pursuant to any subsequent recommendation of the U.G.C. The further case of the petitioner is that when the petitioner was appointed at Marwari College, Ranchi, the said College was an affiliated college of Ranchi University, which was subsequently, in the month of November, 1980, converted into a Constituent College of Ranchi University and all its assets and services of teaching and non-teaching staff merged with Ranchi University. The further case of the petitioner is that a Statute, being Statute of 1986, known as ‘Statute for regularization of services of temporary Lecturers who were appointed on or before 28.02.1982’, was approved by the Hon’ble Chancellor of Ranchi University on 29.01.1986 and, thereafter, Screening Committee was constituted by Ranchi University for regularization of teachers for the newly taken-over Constituent Colleges. However, unfortunately, the candidature of the Petitioner was not placed before the Screening Committee on the alleged ground that certain documents relating to service excerpts of the Petitioner was not available. However, the services of other similarly situated persons with that of the Petitioner were regularized and absorbed pursuant to the Statute of 1986. The further case of the petitioner is that the Petitioner was regularly performing his duties of Lecturer at Marwari College, which has become a Constituent College of Ranchi University, and was regularly paid his salary in the pay scale, which was 4th revised U.G.C. pay-scale, of Rs. 2000-4000/-, but the case of the Petitioner for revision of his pay-scale in the 5th, 6th and subsequent revised pay-scale was not being considered on the alleged ground that the services of the Petitioner were not regularized. 2000-4000/-, but the case of the Petitioner for revision of his pay-scale in the 5th, 6th and subsequent revised pay-scale was not being considered on the alleged ground that the services of the Petitioner were not regularized. The further case of the petitioner is that the Respondent-Ranchi University, pursuant to the decision of the Syndicate in its meeting held on 04.01.2007, confirmed the appointment of the Petitioner as Lecturer in Ranchi University, vide its communication dated 29.05.1997 (Annexure-9). Despite the confirmation of services of the Petitioner by Respondent-Ranchi University, the Petitioner was not being extended the benefit of the revised U.G.C. payscale, which compelled the Petitioner to file repeated representations before the Respondent-Ranchi University, including the Respondent-State of Jharkhand. The further case of the petitioner is that pursuant to such representations being filed by the Petitioner, the Respondent-Ranchi University again, vide its communication contained in the letter dated 09.07.2008, recommended the case of the Petitioner for regularization under the Statute of 1986, to the Hon’ble Chancellor, and, further again, vide letter dated 01.05.2010, recommendations were made for confirming the regularization of the Petitioner by Respondent-Ranchi University to the Hon’ble Chancellor (Annexure-A and B of the Counter Affidavit). The further case of the petitioner is that while confirmation of regularization of the Petitioner was pending consideration before the Hon’ble Chancellor of the University, letter dated 23.11.2010 (Annexure-C) was issued by the Secretary, Department of Human Resources, Government of Jharkhand, wherein a restraint order was passed prohibiting regularization of services of any employee of the University pursuant to regularization/absorption Statute. The said direction was passed by the Respondent-State of Jharkhand after taking into consideration a Judgment rendered by the Patna High Court in the case of Dr. Shiv Narain Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., as reported in (2001) SCC Online Pat. 167, delivered on 02.03.2001, wherein the Hon’ble Patna High Court passed order that the Statute of regularization framed under Section 5 of the Bihar Inter-Universities Board Act, 1981 shall not be given effect to and no regularization shall be made pursuant to the said Statute. The further case of the petitioner is that due to the aforesaid order issued by the State Government, services of the Petitioner, which were earlier already confirmed and regularized by the Respondent-Ranchi University; were not treated as confirmed/regularized, which resulted into non-extension of the benefit of revised pay-scale to the Petitioner. 4. The further case of the petitioner is that due to the aforesaid order issued by the State Government, services of the Petitioner, which were earlier already confirmed and regularized by the Respondent-Ranchi University; were not treated as confirmed/regularized, which resulted into non-extension of the benefit of revised pay-scale to the Petitioner. 4. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the instant writ application is no longer res integra and has already been settled by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of the State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh & Ors. as reported in (2005) 9 SCC 129 . In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the interpretation of the provisions contained under Section 4(1)(14) read with Section 35 and Section 57-A of the Bihar Universities Act, 1976 (as adopted). In the said decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in the matter pertaining to absorption of existing staff appointed against sanctioned vacant post in affiliated colleges, which have been taken-over and converted into Constituent Colleges, the respective Universities are entitled to take decision on their own and the said decision of the respective Universities is not the subject matter of approval of the State Government. Relying upon the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, he contended that the Ranchi University, vide its decision dated 29.05.1997 (Annexure-9) has already confirmed the appointment of the Petitioner as a Lecturer in the Department of English at Marwari College, Ranchi and in view of the said fact, no further confirmation of appointment of the Petitioner was required to be undertaken either from the Hon’ble Chancellor of the University or from the State Government. He further submits that the Respondent-Ranchi University, in view of the fact that revised pay-scale benefits were not being extended to the Petitioner by the State Government, had, in fact, by way of abundant caution, again referred the matter to the Hon’ble Chancellor for confirmation of regularization of the services of the Petitioner, vide its letters dated 09.07.2010 and 01.05.2010 (Annexure-A & B respectively of the Counter Affidavit), but the said exercise taken by Respondent-Ranchi University was only by way of abundant caution, as there was no requirement under law for taking concurrence of the Hon’ble Chancellor. He further contended that the aforesaid contentions, reliance are placed to the decision of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Dr. Sheela Rani Sinha & Anr. Vs. The Hon’ble Chancellor of Universities through the Secretary, reported in (2011) 4 PLJR 178 , wherein the Hon’ble Patna High Court, in almost identical facts of the case, after considering the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh & Ors. (supra), has held that it is the University alone, which is competent enough to decide the matter pertaining to regularization/absorption of the employees of the taken-over constituent colleges and the Hon’ble Chancellor has no role to play in respect of the same. He further contended that since the appointment of the Petitioner was already confirmed by the decision of the Syndicate of Respondent-Ranchi University, the Petitioner was entitled for revision of his pay-scale. He further contended that the reliance placed by Respondent-State of Jharkhand upon a Division Bench Judgment of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Dr. Shiv Narain Yadav and others (Supra), is wholly misplaced and the said Judgment is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It has been further submitted that the said Division Bench Judgment of the Hon’ble Patna High Court has been doubted by another Division Bench of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Devanand Sharma Vs. Chancellor, in C.W.J.C. No. 7550 of 2002 and correctness of the said decision has been referred to a larger Bench of the Hon’ble Patna High Court. He lastly submitted that the decision of the Hon’ble Patna High Court was considered by this Court in the case of Kusheshwar Prasad Singh Vs. Chancellor, Ranchi University & Ors., reported in 2014 (4) AIR Jhar R 70, and a Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that the said decision was not applicable in similar facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the Ranchi-University has supported the arguments of the Petitioner and has stated that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mahasangh’s case (supra), it is the Respondent-Ranchi University, which is competent to decide in the matter pertaining to confirmation/absorption of the services of the Petitioner. 5. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the Ranchi-University has supported the arguments of the Petitioner and has stated that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mahasangh’s case (supra), it is the Respondent-Ranchi University, which is competent to decide in the matter pertaining to confirmation/absorption of the services of the Petitioner. It has been admitted that the Respondent-Ranchi University, vide its decision dated 29.05.1997 (Annexure-9), has already confirmed the appointment of the Petitioner as Lecturer in English and in view of the said fact, there was no impediment for extension of the benefit of revision of payscale of the Petitioner. He further submits that the ratio of the Judgment in the case of Dr. Shiv Narain Yadav (supra) has already been distinguished by this Court in the case of Kusheshwar Prasad Singh (supra). He further contended that the Respondent-Ranchi University already found the case of the Petitioner eligible for regularization and, in fact, confirmed the appointment of the Petitioner, but in view of the restraint order passed by the Respondent-State of Jharkhand, the benefit of extension of the revised pay-scale could not be granted to the Petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, while relying upon paragraphs 7 to 13 of its Counter Affidavit, in substance, has submitted that appointment of the Petitioner in Marwari College, Ranchi was not a valid appointment as the concurrence granted by the College Service Commission was only for a period of one year and after expiry of one year, the Petitioner could not have continued in service. He further submits that the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Dr. Shiv Narain Yadav & ors (supra) has passed order restraining regularization of employees under Statute of 1986 and in that view of the matter, services of the Petitioner cannot be said to have been regularized/absorbed in Ranchi University and, hence, the Petitioner cannot be extended the benefit of revision of pay-scale. 7. Shiv Narain Yadav & ors (supra) has passed order restraining regularization of employees under Statute of 1986 and in that view of the matter, services of the Petitioner cannot be said to have been regularized/absorbed in Ranchi University and, hence, the Petitioner cannot be extended the benefit of revision of pay-scale. 7. In reply to the aforesaid submissions of the Ranchi-University and Respondent-State, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the submissions made by the Respondent-State of Jharkhand that appointment of the Petitioner was not a valid appointment, is wholly unfounded and, in fact, the Respondent-State of Jharkhand has no jurisdiction to comment upon the appointment of the Petitioner in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh (supra). He further submitted that appointment of the Petitioner has already been confirmed by the Respondent-Ranchi University and, thus, there cannot be any impediment in extension of benefit of revision of pay-scale of the Petitioner. He further submits that at the time when the writ application was filed by the Petitioner, the benefit of 5th and 6th revised U.G.C. pay-scale was made applicable to the University employees of the State of Jharkhand and during pendency of the instant writ application, benefit of 7th revised U.G.C. pay-scale has also been extended to said University employees of the State of Jharkhand and, accordingly, it has been prayed that said benefits should also be extended to the Petitioner. It has been further submitted that the Petitioner, during pendency of the instant writ application, has already superannuated from service with effect from 31st August, 2020 and in that view of the matter, apart from payment of arrear of salary to the Petitioner in revised pay-scales, the Petitioner is also entitled for payment of his retiral dues, which is to be computed on the basis of fixation of pay on the date of his retirement as per the revised U.G.C. pay-scale. 8. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record it appears that the issue for consideration before this Court is:- (a) “whether in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India rendered in the case of Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh (supra), it is the Respondent-Ranchi University which is competent to decide on the issue of regularization/confirmation of services of the Petitioner; and whether any decision is required to be taken by the office of the Hon’ble Chancellor regarding regularization of the services of the Petitioner.” (b) “whether in view of the Judgment rendered by Division Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Dr. Shiv Narain Yadav (supra), the appointment of the Petitioner cannot be treated to have been regularized/confirmed ?”. 9. It is an undisputed fact that pursuant to taking over of Marwari College as Constituent College of Respondent-Ranchi University, the case of the Petitioner along with several similarly situated persons, were referred to the Screening Committee for regularization of their services. However, due to want of certain documents, the case of the Petitioner could not be considered for regularization by the Screening Committee. However, the Respondent-Ranchi University, pursuant to the decision taken by its Syndicate in its meeting held on 04.01.1997, has already confirmed the appointment of the Petitioner as Lecturer in Ranchi University vide communication dated 29.05.1997 (Annexure- 9). The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh & Ors., (supra), while interpreting the provisions of Section 4(1)(14) read with Section 35 and Section 57-A of the Bihar Universities Act, 1976 (as adopted) has held as under:- “54. The two non-obstante clauses with slightly different wordings have thus to be harmoniously construed so as to fulfill the object of each one of them. On examination of the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions, we find that Section 35, requiring prior sanction of the State Government for creation of posts and appointments, applies to all affiliated colleges. Compared with Section 35, Section 4(1)(14) has limited operation at a stage when a university enters into an agreement with the management or Governing Bodies of private institutions affiliated or nonaffiliated for taking over its management, assets, liabilities and staff. Compared with Section 35, Section 4(1)(14) has limited operation at a stage when a university enters into an agreement with the management or Governing Bodies of private institutions affiliated or nonaffiliated for taking over its management, assets, liabilities and staff. The effect of non-obstante clause in Section 4(1)(14) is that the matter of absorption of staff of such institution/college proposed to be taken over, would be within the sole power and jurisdiction of the university concerned within whose jurisdiction the affiliated college or institution falls. On the matter of absorption of staff of taken over institutions, Section 35 requiring prior sanction or approval of the State Government for creation of posts and appointment; would not be a constraint on the power of the university. It is different thing that the university in considering absorption of the staff of institution taken over may give due consideration to the legality/regularity or otherwise of a particular appointment but it would not be inhibited by the absence of prior sanction or approval of the State as contemplated in Section 35 of the Act. This is how the two non-obstante clauses have to be harmoniously construed and applied as giving overriding effect to each and restrict their operation within exclusive field assigned to each. In the matter of creation of posts and appointment in affiliated colleges in normal circumstances, requirement of prior, sanction or approval of the State Government, as contained in Section 35, is not dispensed with because of the contrary provision contained in Section 4(1)(14) and the latter section is restricted in its operation to absorption of staff of a taken over institution by the university. 55. Clause (c) to sub-section (2) of Section 57-A was introduced by Act 3 of 1990 and has no retrospective application to the cases of affiliated colleges taken over as constituent colleges prior to the year 1990. The said clause (c) to sub-section (2) of Section 57-A requires further approval of the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission before absorbing the services of teachers of the affiliated colleges converted into constituent colleges. The aforesaid piece of subsequent legislation amending the same Act can appropriately be taken as an aid to the interpretation of the unamended provisions of the Act. The aforesaid piece of subsequent legislation amending the same Act can appropriately be taken as an aid to the interpretation of the unamended provisions of the Act. The amended provisions of the Act are an indication that the subject of absorption of staff of taken over affiliated colleges is treated as a subject distinct from regular recruitment to the posts in affiliated colleges which is to be made with prior sanction or approval of the State Government as provided in Section 35 of the Act. Similarly, sub-section (3) added to Section 35 by Act 17 of 1993 is also prospective in application and has no adverse effect on the absorption of the services of the teaching staff of the affiliated colleges taken over as constituent colleges prior to 1993. Sub-section (3) applies to normal mode of recruitment of staff (teaching or non-teaching) of affiliated colleges and is merely reiteration of the legal position that appointments and promotions made contrary to the provisions of the Act, statutes, rules and regulations would be invalid and liable to be terminated at any time. It also provides that any expenditure incurred by the university against such illegal, irregular, unauthorized appointments/promotions shall be realized from the officers found responsible for committing such illegality as a public demand under the provisions of the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914. Clause (c) of Section 57-A(2) introduced in the year 1990 and sub-section (3) of Section 35 introduced in the year 1993 being prospective in operation have no application to the affiliated colleges taken over as constituent colleges with the existing staff prior to the year 1990. Those provisions introduced subsequently in the year 1990 and 1993 are being referred to for a limited purpose to show that the legislature has always treated differently the normal recruitment which has to be made with the approval of the State Government to teaching and non-teaching posts in affiliated colleges and the matter of absorption of existing staff appointed against sanctioned or non-sanctioned posts in the affiliated colleges taken over and converted as constituent colleges. 56. The two non-obstante clauses, although slightly differently worded, one in proviso to Section 4(1)(14) and the other in Section 35 of the Act have thus been construed harmoniously. 56. The two non-obstante clauses, although slightly differently worded, one in proviso to Section 4(1)(14) and the other in Section 35 of the Act have thus been construed harmoniously. Our conclusion is that they operate in two different fields—former to consideration of absorption of staff of taken over colleges and the latter to affiliated colleges when they are not under any proposal of being taken over by the university. The two provisions being intended to operate in two different situations and fields, both have an overriding effect on each other. That is why the legislature has employed a non-obstante clause in each.” 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. 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 reconsideration 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. 11. In view of the cumulative facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, the benefit of revision of pay-scale in 5th, 6th and 7th U.G.C. revised pay-scale is liable to be extended to the Petitioner and the Petitioner is entitled for payment of arrear salary with effect from 17.08.1980 till the date of retirement as per the revised pay-scale, which has been implemented from time to time in the State of Jharkhand. Since the Petitioner has already superannuated from service with effect from 31.08.2020, the Petitioner is further entitled for computation of his post retiral benefits on the basis of the revised pay-scale which would be applicable on the date of his retirement and, accordingly, all post retiral benefits are required to be disbursed to the Petitioner after revising his pay-scale. The Respondent-Ranchi University may be directed to send appropriate requisition to the State of Jharkhand for grant of approval for release of salary in revised pay-scale to the Petitioner and, consequently, the State of Jharkhand may be directed to approve the revised pay-scale to the Petitioner and provide appropriate fund to Respondent-Ranchi University for payment of arrear of salary to the Petitioner in the revised pay-scale including payment of post retiral benefit to the Petitioner as per revised U.G.C. pay-scale. It is made clear that the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 12. With the aforesaid directions the instant writ application stands disposed of.