IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1487 of 2003 DR.RAM NARAIN PD.SINGH s/o Late Ram Lakhan Prasad Singh, resident of village-and P.O. Badalpura Dist. Begusarai present address; C/o Shri Bhrigu Nath Sahay Singh, resident of Kunkun Singh Lane, Patna-6………Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Director of Higher Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Higher Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. Secretary, Bihar College Service Commission, Patna 5. Vice Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya 6. Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. 7. Finance Officer, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. 8. Principal, Oriental College, Muslim Minority College under Magadh University, Patna City. 9. Secretary, Oriental College, Patna City. … respondents. ----------- 3. 26.07.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the Magadh University as also counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition reads as follows:- “(i). Issuance of Writ in the nature of Mandamus, order or direction, directing and commanding the respondents to pay the salary from the period 22.1.79 till 31.12.1996 in view of approval of appointment has been made (Annexure-14) by Magadh University, Bodh Gaya after concurrence of Bihar College Service Commission (Annexure-6). (ii) Issuance of direction on respondents to pay Ph.D allowance to the petitioner since the day of appointment i.e. 22.1.79 till date of superannuation i.e. 31.12.1996. (iii) Further issuance of direction 2 on respondents to pay the scale of Reader of Magadh University, Bodh Gaya with effect from 22.01.1989 as promotion has been granted to the petitioner as Reader (vide Anneuxre- 10).” As would be apparent from the reading of the aforementioned prayer, all of them relate to the period of 1979 to 1996 for which cause of action to the petitioner had in fact arisen in the aforementioned period. The payment of salary of seven to twenty four years back however is being claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition on the ground even though the College Service Commission had given concurrence to the service of the petitioner in the year 1985, but it took 13 years to the University to give consequential approval of his service and for this purpose the counsel relies on the letter dated 27.1.1998. Admittedly, the petitioner was a teacher of minority institution which was receiving grant in aid from year to year released by the State Government. The petitioner had retired from service on 31.1.1997 and till that date he had also received payment of salary for a period of one month i.e. November 1996 but then for 3 good seven years he had remained silent with regard to rest of the cause of action pertaining to payment of salary. Such writ petition therefore is clearly hit by the vice of unexplained delay and laches. Unfortunately, in this case neither the State nor the counsel for the University has filed any counter affidavit and their oral submission is only based on the technicalities but they too are not in a position to disclose the reasons for non-payment of salary of the petitioner. This Court accordingly would leave the matter in the hands of the State Government and if the State Government would find that the salary of the petitioner was payable, it would take its own decision strictly in accordance with law. The petitioner is therefore only given liberty to file a fresh representation enclosing the copy of this order whereafter the Director Higher Education of the State Government will look into the grievance of the petitioner and after obtaining order of the State Government dispose of the same by a reasoned order. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not 4 expressed any opinion on the merit of the claim of the petitioner; it would be open for the State Government to take any appropriate decision in accordance with law. Such exercise must be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order along with aforementioned representation to be filed by the petitioner. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)