IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10155 of 2006 Smt. Kamla Pandey, W/o late (Dr.) Jaganath Pandey, present address C/o Devesh Pandey, Chandralok Chawk, Mohalla Naya Tola, P.S. Kazi Mohammadpur, District Muzaffarpur. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Secretary cum Commissioner, Higher Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Higher Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Vice Chancellor, B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Registrar, B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. 5. The Finance Officer, B.R.A. Bihar, University, Muzaffarpur. --------- Respondents ----------- 2 30.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the University. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That this writ application is being filed for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/ orders and direction/directions in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent authorities to pay the arrears of salary difference for the period from 1.1.1986 to 31.3.1989 including Interim Relief, Deferred D.A. arrear, payable to late Dr. Jagannath Pandey, University Professor, accrued consequent to implementation of revised pay scale under U.G.C. scale to which the petitioner is entitled after death of her husband Dr. Jagannath Pandey alongwith statutory interest from the date on which the same fell due, till the 2 date of actual payment and for any other relief/reliefs to which the petitioner is entitled.” Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that for the aforementioned relief the petitioner had filed its representation to the Vice Chancellor of the University as contained in Annexure-4 but no order thereon has been passed till today. He would also submit that the petitioner is the widow of a retired teacher of the University and therefore, a decision ought to have been taken by the University. Counsel for the University as usual has no instruction and has not even filed any counter affidavit. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the Vice Chancellor of the University to dispose of the said representation of the petitioner, which was received in his office of the University on 6.8.2005 (Annexure-4) within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that whatever amount the petitioner is found to be entitled 3 in terms of the order passed by the Vice Chancellor would also be paid to the petitioner in next three months. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)