IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6025 of 2005 DR.SHEFALIKA VERMA7 wife of late Lalan Kumar, resident of Mohalla- Gangjala, P.O., P.S. & District-Saharsa, at present residing at Flat no. 103 (Shefali- Lalan Homes), Abhishek Apartment, Mauryapath, Khajpura,Bailey Road,Patna-14. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Higher Education, Govt. of Bihar,Patna. 2. The Vice Chancellor , B.N. Mandal University, Laloo Nagar,Madhepura. 3. The Registrar, B.N. Mandal University, Laloo Nagar, Madhepura. 4. The Principal, S.N.S.R.K.S. College,Saharsa. ----------- 10 8.12.2008 Three grievances have been raised by the petitioner. Firstly, that she was entitled to a particular pay scale from 1986, as noted in his service book, but the University has granted her the said pay scale only from 1987. Second grievance is that while she was in A.N.College,Patna, she was posted to Saharsa and she has been deprived of her payment holding that she has not reported for a long period. The third grievance is with regard to certain unauthorized absence. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the University. So far as first grievance is concerned, it is misconceived. The college in which the petitioner was working became a constituent college in 1987. Thus, the University has no obligation to pay the pay scale or the salary for the period prior to became constituent of the college. The second grievance is with regard to the period moving from A.N.College to Saharsa College. My attention has been - 2 - drawn to Annexure 6/3 being the order dated 24.8.2000 passed in CWJC No. 7474 of 2000 in the case filed by the petitioner. In the said order , it has clearly been averred that the petitioner is allowed six weeks time to join the college. Needless to point out that if the expiry of the said period falls during vacation , the joining time should be extended to the re-opening day. This order was passed on 24.8.2000.Petitioner joined on the very next day following Dashara. If that be so, then this period cannot be termed as illegal and irregular leave period. This, this period has to be given credit. Coming to the third grievance with regard to the absence, in my view, the question as to who has drawn a line in the attendance register, more than five years prior to his retirement ,is a very disputable question and cannot be resolved before this Court. Petitioner would seek appropriate remedy, if so advised. Thus found, petitioner’s second contention can only succeed, as indicated above. With the aforesaid observation and direction the writ petition stands disposed of . singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh)