JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Original Petitioner had approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the proceeding dated 18.03.2019 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition), whereby the respondents have expressed their inability in the matter of absorption of the services of original petitioner, thereby indirectly denied the benefits of 5th and 6th revised UGC Pay-Scale. Original Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 18.03.2015, passed by the Hon’ble Justice S.B. Sinha Commission to the extent that the claim petition of the respondent No. 4 herein has been allowed on the ground that he was found working on the cut-off date i.e. 30.04.1986. Petitioner has further prayed for direction upon the respondents particularly respondent nos. 1 and 2 to grant approval of the pay-scale of petitioner’s husband in University Grant Commission (for short “UGC”) revised pay-scale of Rs.8000-13500 pursuant to 5th PRC w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and corresponding 6th PRC w.e.f. 01.01.2006 i.e. the date from which similarly situated persons to that of the husband of petitioner has been given the said benefits and further to pay arrears of salary. Petitioner has also prayed for direction upon the respondent no. 3 to reissue order of absorption in favour of husband of petitioner in Mandar College, Mandar, in place of respondent no. 4 who do not possess the essential qualification for being absorbed ahead the petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the case is that on 11.09.1985, the husband of petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the department of Commerce in Mandar College, Mandar. It is the case of the petitioner that the erstwhile State of Bihar had taken a decision for converting the said Mandar College, Mandar into a constituent college of the Ranchi University and pursuant to letter issued by State of Bihar and under an agreement, said College was converted into a Constituent College of Ranchi University. Admittedly, the husband of petitioner was working in the aforesaid college against recommended post, much prior to the cut-off date i.e. 30.04.1986 and was entitled for absorption under Ranchi University. Admittedly, the husband of petitioner was working in the aforesaid college against recommended post, much prior to the cut-off date i.e. 30.04.1986 and was entitled for absorption under Ranchi University. However, dispute with respect to various colleges which were converted into constituent college arose with regard to absorption of teaching and non-teaching staff of the college against sanctioned post as well as against the post for which recommendations were sent by the University to the State Government upto the cut-off date i.e. 30.04.1986. In view of the aforesaid dispute with respect to regularization of the employees working in one or other colleges prior to the date of taking over as a constituent college and its conversion, the said dispute was referred to a Five Member Committee, consisting of the Vice-Chancellors of different Universities, constituted for identifying the teaching and non-teaching staff, working against one or the other sanctioned and recommended posts in the taken over constituent colleges. Thereafter, the said Committee vide its letter dated 01.02.1988 and 18.12.1989, recommended the names of teaching and non-teaching staffs for absorption, in which the name of the husband of petitioner also finds place. 4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the said dispute travelled upto Hon’ble Patna High Court and the Hon’ble Court vide its judgment dated 31.01.1997, directed the Universities, who were parties in that writ to take steps for regularization of the services of the teachers of the colleges which have become constituent college of different universities in the fourth phase, in light of the communication of the State Govt. In compliance of aforesaid judgment, the husband of petitioner was reinstated in service by Ranchi University vide notification bearing memo No. 2937 dated 25.06.1998. The aforesaid order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Patna was subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court appointed Hon’ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) S.C. Agarwal as one member Committee to enquire into the matter and submit its report. Hon’ble S.C. Agarwal Commission vide its report did not go into the question of validity of orders dated 01.02.1988 and 18.12.1989, by which the State Govt. itself has directed for absorption of the employees against the recommended post. Justice (Retd.) S.C. Agarwal as one member Committee to enquire into the matter and submit its report. Hon’ble S.C. Agarwal Commission vide its report did not go into the question of validity of orders dated 01.02.1988 and 18.12.1989, by which the State Govt. itself has directed for absorption of the employees against the recommended post. Since the validity of the aforesaid orders were not raised before the Hon’ble High Court and were raised for the first time before the Hon’ble S.C. Agarwal Commission, the Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to go into the validity of the same and objection raised by the State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was rejected. The report of the Hon’ble S.C. Agarwal Commission was accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its judgment also, categorically held that in view of Section 4(1)(14) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, the matter relating to absorption of one or the other employees of the newly converted constituent College was within the exclusive domain of the University concerned. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that the State Govt. has no role to play in the matter of absorption of the services of the employees of the newly converted constituent college and the decision in that regard is to be taken by the University concerned. In compliance of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and in compliance of the recommendation of Hon’ble Agarwal Commission, the service of the husband of petitioner has been absorbed at BNJ College, Sisai instead of the parent college i.e. Mandar College, Mandar, however, the husband of petitioner was never relieved for giving joining at BNJ College, Sisai and till the date of his death, the husband of the petitioner was working in his parent college i.e. Mandar College, Mandar. 5. The services of husband of petitioner was initially absorbed pursuant to order passed by Hon’ble High Court and subsequently even after the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the services of her husband was absorbed by the Ranchi University. 6. 5. The services of husband of petitioner was initially absorbed pursuant to order passed by Hon’ble High Court and subsequently even after the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the services of her husband was absorbed by the Ranchi University. 6. It is the further case of the petitioner that her husband was working pursuant to his appointment since 11.09.1985 i.e. the date of his initial appointment to the satisfaction of all concerned and hence, the services of husband of petitioner was absorbed by Ranchi University with effect from the date of his initial appointment and he was getting his current salary in UGC Pay-Scale of Lecturer in 4th Revised Pay-Scale of Rs.2200-4000/-. However, pursuant to the revision of the pay-scale as per 5th Pay Revision Commission, the husband of petitioner was entitled for fixation of his salary in the UGC Scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996 i.e. in the pay-scale of Rs.8000-13500 but respondent-State has not approved the said pay-scale due to which petitioner is suffering huge financial loss. It is the further case of the petitioner that though the similarly situated persons have been given the benefits of 5th Pay Revision and 6th Pay Revision but the same has not been granted to her husband. The husband of petitioner had made several representations for grant of the said benefits but the respondents have not paid any heed to his said request and are sitting tight over the matter. Hence, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Hon’ble Court. 7. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court towards the order dated 04.09.2018 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4229 of 2017 (Abdul Qayum Ansari Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and also on the order dated 31.01.2018, passed by this Court in W.P.(S). No. 5197 of 2017 (Satya Narayan Singh & Anr. Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.) as also on the order dated 31.08.2022, passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S). No. 6217 of 2017 (Bhawani Prasad Roy Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.). Pursuant to the said order, the respondent-State as well as University have extended the benefits to the petitioners of the aforesaid cases. Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.) as also on the order dated 31.08.2022, passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S). No. 6217 of 2017 (Bhawani Prasad Roy Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.). Pursuant to the said order, the respondent-State as well as University have extended the benefits to the petitioners of the aforesaid cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this writ petition may also be disposed of in terms of the order passed in the aforesaid cases, granting similar benefits to the present petitioner also. 8. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the orders of Higher, Technical Education and Skill Development Department is based on the recommendation of the University, and the University has recommended the case of the husband of petitioner, after making necessary fixation order to the respondent-State of Jharkhand way back in the year 2019. Learned counsel further argues that since the case of the husband of petitioner is fully covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4229 of 2017 (Abdul Qayum Ansari Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.) as well as W.P.(S). No. 6217 of 2017 (Bhawani Prasad Roy Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.), and he is entitled for the similar benefits what has been extended to the petitioners of aforesaid cases. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection if the instant writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid cases. Learned counsel for the respondents further argues that if the husband of petitioner is found to be on similar footings, an appropriate order shall be passed, extending similar benefits to the present petitioner also. 9. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University placing reliance on Annexure-8 to the writ petition submits that in view of specific direction of this, the services of the petitioner cannot be absorbed in any other College or any other Department. 10. The said contention of learned counsel for the respondent-University is not acceptable to this Court since the services of husband of the petitioner has been regularized in view of order passed by this Court which was affirmed upto the Hon’ble Apex Court. 11. 10. The said contention of learned counsel for the respondent-University is not acceptable to this Court since the services of husband of the petitioner has been regularized in view of order passed by this Court which was affirmed upto the Hon’ble Apex Court. 11. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. The issue involved in these writ petition is no more re-integra as issues have already been decided in W.P.(S). No. 4833 of 2008. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment reported in case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vrs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. & Ors., reported in (2005) 9 SCC 129 especially in para-54 has held that in the matter of absorption of staff of such Institution/ College purposed to be taken over would be within sole power and jurisdiction of the University under Section 4(1)(14) of the Act, 2000. It has also been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para – 54 of the said judgment that 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 post and appointment), would not be a constraint on the power of the University. Thus, it appears that wider power with the State Government under Section 35 of the Act, 2002 is in ordinary circumstances when increasing the sanctioned strength is to be made by the University, but, when the University is taking over the management of any College and thereby if it absorbs any staff under Section 4(1)(14), thereafter the Government cannot exercise power under Section 35 of the Act denying the absorption or questioning absorption of staff of “taken-over college”. Paras-53 and 54 of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vrs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. & Ors., reported (2005) 9 SCC 129 is reproduced herein below:- “53. We do not consider it necessary to express any final opinion as to whether the provision of 'prior approval' contained in section 35 for creation of posts and appointments in affiliated college is mandatory or directory. Vrs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. & Ors., reported (2005) 9 SCC 129 is reproduced herein below:- “53. We do not consider it necessary to express any final opinion as to whether the provision of 'prior approval' contained in section 35 for creation of posts and appointments in affiliated college is mandatory or directory. For the purpose of this batch of cases, it is sufficient for us to opine that clause 14 of section 4(1) operates in exclusive field of considering and taking decision on absorption of staff appointed regularly or otherwise in an institution including an affiliated or non- affiliated college which is to be taken over as 'constituent college' under a formal agreement reached between the university and the Governing Body of that college. In the process of taking over of management, assets, liabilities and staff of the affiliated or non- affiliated college, the university has to take a decision with regard to absorption of existing staff. In this process of consideration for absorption, it may have regard to the provisions of the Act including observance of the provisions of section 35 of the Act. In the matter of absorbing staff of colleges taken over, any alleged non-observance of alleged mandatory provision of obtaining prior approval under section 35, before creation of posts and appointments to them, would not be an impediment in the way of university to permit absorption of an employee working against a post. It may for the above purpose seek ex-post facto approval of the State Government. The decision of the government contained in its communication dated 18.12.1989 itself allows consideration of absorption of the members of the staff working against post for which sanction for creation of posts was pending with the State Government on recommendations of the university. We do not find any conflict in the provisions of section 4(1)(14) and section 35, although each contains a non-obstante clause. They intend to override each other in field exclusively assigned to each. Appointments in affiliated college in normal circumstances has to be with prior approval of State Government in accordance with section 35 but subject matter of absorption of services of staff taken over shall be within exclusive jurisdiction of the university concerned in accordance with Section 4(1)(14) of the Act . 54. Appointments in affiliated college in normal circumstances has to be with prior approval of State Government in accordance with section 35 but subject matter of absorption of services of staff taken over shall be within exclusive jurisdiction of the university concerned in accordance with Section 4(1)(14) of the Act . 54. The two non-obstante clauses with slightly different wordings have thus to be harmoniously construed so as to fulfil 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 university enters into an agreement with the management or governing bodies of private institutions affiliated or non-affiliated 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 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 a 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 appointments 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.” 12. As sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and legal propositions, the proceeding dated 18.03.2019 (Annexure-8) whereby the respondent-University has expressed its inability in the matter of absorption of the services of husband of petitioner, being devoid of any merit, is hereby quashed and set aside. 13. As a sequel to the quashment of the aforesaid minutes of proceeding, I hereby direct the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondent-University. Upon receipt of the same, the respondent-University is directed to pass reasoned order, taking into consideration that already petitioner has been reinstated in the year 1998 pursuant to the order of this Court passed in CWJC No. 4021 of 1995 affirmed upto Hon’ble Apex Court in C.A. No. 6098 of 1997. 14. Upon receipt of the same, the respondent-University is directed to recommend the case of the husband of petitioner, pertaining to fixation of salary/ family pension under 5th and 6th PRC and forward the same to the respondent- Higher, Technical Education and Skill Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi and upon receipt of such recommendation, the respondent- Higher, Technical Education and Skill Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner and extend the benefit of the 5th Pay and 6th Pay Revision Commission including arrears of difference of salary and other death-cum-retiral dues from the date the petitioner is entitled for in accordance with law. 15. This exercise should be completed by the Director, Higher, Technical Education and Skill Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and since the petitioner is entitled to get the benefits, as claimed, necessary consequential order will be passed within a period of three weeks thereafter. If any amount is to be sanctioned for disbursing to the University for making payment to the petitioner, the same should be done within a period of five weeks thereafter. The University, on receipt of such amount, shall disburse the same to the petitioner within a period of two weeks thereafter. 16. Since the husband of petitioner has already died, the petitioner is entitled for the entire benefits along with statutory interest @ 6% per annum from the date of entitlement till its actual/ final payment. 17. The writ petition is accordingly, allowed with the directions as above.