TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. R. Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sohail Anwar, learned Senior Advocate, for the University and Dr. M.K. Laik, learned Senior S.C. -I for the State respondents and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed off at this stage.
(2.) THE six petitioners are said to be working continuously and without any break as Laboratory Assistant in the S.R.T. College, Dhamri at Godda. This fact has not been disputed by any of the respondents. The only stand is that these petitioners have been working on daily wages without regular pay scale in as much as the Government has not yet sanctioned these posts. However, a letter dated 06.05.1990 (Annexure 8) issued by the Bhagalpur University goes to show that the University had written a letter to various authorities including the Heads of the P.G. Department etc. and also to members of all constituent colleges of the Bhagalpur University informing them that cases for regularization of non teaching staffs appointed under the staffing pattern should be paid the minimum of pre -revised scale of pay but not less than Rs. 815/ - for the 3rd grade and Rs. 525/ - for the 4th grade till posts were created or till these employees were regularized in their services. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition, it has been stated that all the petitioners, except the petitioner No. 4, have been working since 1979 i.e. prior to the College becoming a constituent unit of the Bhagalpur University on 14.10.1982. The petitioner No. 4 had started working since 06.06.1983. This fact has also been admitted in the counter affidavit of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 at paragraph 4 but they have stated that these appointments against unsanctioned posts in unaffiliated departments were in violation of Sec.35 of the Bihar State Universities Act. It is further evident from the pleadings that the Science Faculty got approval/sanction up to the Intermediate level on 01.05.1987, it is also not disputed by any of the parties that the "petitioners are still continuing to work even till date but on a status which makes them helpless spectators compelling them to move this Court.
(3.) THE overall scenario therefore which emerges is that, as on date, except the petitioner No. 4, the others have rendered the continuous service for 25 years whereas the petitioner No. 4 has put in about 22 years. However, the fact that the petitioners have been working on "staffing pattern" would be evidently from letter dated 15.01.1992 as contained in Annexure 10 (relevant at page 66 which is the list containing names of the petitioners).;