IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11016 of 2007 Urmila Devi, wife of late Pratap Narayan Singh, resident of village Dhanchchha, P.S. Durgawati, District Kaimur … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Chief Secretary 2. The Collector, Kaimur at Bhabhua 3. The District Education Officer, Kaimur at Bhabua 4. The Treasury Officer, Kaimur at Bhabua 5. The Headmaster High School Dhanechcha P.S. Durgawati, District Kaimur … Respondents ---------------------------------- 2. 8.11.2011 Having heard counsel for the parties and taking into account that the reason for non-payment of salary of the husband of the petitioner for the period 1.6.1992 to 13.12.1992 is non- compliance of a transfer order by the husband of the petitioner, this Court after 15 years of cause of action for such payment of salary is not inclined to interfere especially when the husband of the petitioner was alive till 19.4.2004 and did nothing significant to claim his such dues of payment of salary. The widow of a Government servant can only claim such amount or raise such cause of action on behalf of her husband which were of a close proximity from the date of death of her husband. In this case the husband was alive till 19.4.2004 and yet he did not move this Court for payment of his salary for the period 1.6.1992 to 13.12.1992. That apart this Court has also perused the order passed by the authority as contained in Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’ to the counter affidavit which gives some indication as with regard to the reason for non-payment of salary for the period 11.6.1992 to 4.12.1994 wherein it has been said that the husband of the 2 petitioner after being transferred on administrative ground by department’s letter no. 861 dated 6.3.1992 did not report on duty till his writ application against the transfer order dated 11.3.1992 was allowed. The respondents, therefore, have adopted the principle of ‘no work no pay’ for the interregnum period but have allowed the said period to be counted towards service length of the husband of the petitioner for all other purposes. As a matter of fact if this Court had already quashed the order of transfer of the husband of the petitioner, the authorities were required to examine the whole thing as to whether the husband of the petitioner was at fault in not complying the transfer order which was held to be bad by this Court. Unfortunately neither the counsel for the petitioner nor the counsel for the State have with them even the number of writ application filed by the husband of the petitioner against his transfer order dated 11.3.1992 which is said to have been allowed. This Court, therefore, is not aware as to under what terms the writ application was allowed and as to whether the issue of payment of salary to the petitioner for the interregnum period in which he had remained absent from duty was specifically addressed to. As noted above, after 15 years of cause of action the present writ application has been filed and therefore, normally this Court was not inclined to interfere with the decision taken by the authority but then keeping in view with the two decisions in case of the petitioner as with regard to payment of salary of her husband has been taken on 8.9.2009, as contained in Annexure ‘A’ 3 and 5.3.2011, as contained in Annexure ‘B’, this Court would give liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority, namely, District Education Establishment Committee of Kaimur District and if it is found by the Committee that the order of this Court was in favour of the husband of the petitioner even as with regard to payment of salary, a fresh decision for payment of salary for the aforementioned period would be taken. If for any reason the District Education Establishment Committee rejects the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary for the interregnum period of 1.6.1992 to 13.12.1992 as specifically prayed in this writ application, the reasons must be recorded and communicated to the petitioner by the District Programme Officer of Bhabhua District, the successor in office of the District Superintendent of Education, Bhabhua. The whole exercise must be completed within a period of six months from the date of filing of the representation by the petitioner enclosing not only this order but also the earlier order of this Court, whereby and whereunder the transfer order of the husband of the petitioner dated 6.3.1992 was quashed. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/