IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8310 of 2007 Smt.Madheshwari Devi, widow of late Maurakhan Sharma and daughter of Sri Nathun Singh, resident of village Bhimpura, P.O. Marjhans, P.S. Makdumpur, District Jehanabad, at present posted as Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Bhimpura, Makdumpur, Jehanabad … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna 2. Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna 3. District Superintendent of Education, Jehanabad 4. Headmaster, Primary School, Marjhans, Makdumpur, the Drawing and Disbursing Officer in relation to the petitioner’s school … Respondents ---------------------------------- 4. 3.11.2011 Having heard counsel for the parties and taking into account that there is serious dispute as with regard to actual working of the petitioner for the period December, 1993 to February, 2000 for which payment of salary has been claimed by the petitioner in this writ application, this Court would find it difficult to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to make payment of salary of the petitioner for the aforesaid period. The reasons for the same are also very clear, inasmuch as if the petitioner claims that she having been appointed in the year 1988 had continued to work and receive payment of her salary till November, 1993 and thereafter her payment of salary has been stopped in view of the specific order passed by the authority contained in Memo No. 11 dated 18.1.1994, whereafter the petitioner did not report on duty as is manifest from the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents, this Court would find it difficult to allow the petitioner to raise a stale claim after more than seven years of the cause of action. It has to be taken into account that the payment of 2 salary of the petitioner was resumed from the month of March, 2000 in view of an order of the District Superintendent of Education, Jehanabad dated 12.7.2000, as contained in Annexure 2, with effect from March, 2000 in which there was specific stipulation that the payment of salary of the earlier period as claimed by the petitioner i.e. December, 1993 to February, 2000 will be paid only after making verification from the absentee statement. The respondents having verified and found that the petitioner’s name never figured in the absentee statement in the school in question, cannot now be directed to either produce such absentee statement, inasmuch as the life of such absentee statement of the period December, 1993 to February, 2000 being of a prior period of five years, their retention is also neither required nor expected. The petitioner for this purpose was given opportunity by this Court to file rejoinder to the counter affidavit bringing on record any documentary proof to show that she had actually worked in the school in question in the period December, 1993 to February, 2000 but despite best of the efforts by Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, there has been no response to him from the petitioner. The net result is that the stand taken by the respondents as with regard to the petitioner not functioning and doing her duty in between December, 1993 to February, 2000 remains uncontroverted. In that view of the matter, this Court would not find any material to support the case and claim of the petitioner that she had actually worked in the period in question 3 and was entitled to draw her payment of salary. None-the-less the respondents have while resuming to make payment of salary to the petitioner from March, 2000 onwards have not started any disciplinary proceeding for the absence of the petitioner in the period December, 1993 to February, 2000 and therefore, when the clouds created as with regard to genuineness of the certificate relating to academic qualification of the petitioner has been also resolved in her favour, this Court must give this much relief to the petitioner that even though she will not be entitled for payment of her salary for the period December, 1993 to February, 2000, the said period shall count for all other purposes both towards continuity in service as also for retirement benefits. Thus, in the result, this writ application, subject to the aforementioned observations and directions, fails and is accordingly dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/