IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.735 of 2003 Dr.Sudha Verma, W/o Mr. Maruti Prasad Verma, Resident of 139, S.K. Nagar, Road No. 23, Police Station Budha Colony, Patna. -------- Petitoiner Versus 1. Patna University through the Vice Chancellor, Patna University, Patna. 2. The Registrar Patna University, Patna. 3. The Assistant Registrar, Patna University, Patna. 4. The Finance Advisor, Patna University, Patna. 5. The Head of Department, Department of Philosophy, Patna University. 6. Dr. S.M. Raza, Head of Department, Department of Labour and Social Welfare, Patna University. --------- Respondents ----------- 3 02.07.2010 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for the Patna University is also not present nor any counter affidavit has been filed in this case by the respondents. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as below:- “1. That this is an application for issuance of appropriate writ, order or directions commanding respondents to make immediate payment of arrears of salary to the petitioner from 8.7.1993 to March, 1995 (except from 18.4.95 to Sept. 1995) and October, 1995 uptill now and to continue to make regular payment of salary to the petitioner after fixing the pay scale and granting consequential benefits.” From reading of the writ application, it would appear that the same grievance of the petitioner was the subject matter of an earlier 2 writ application filed by her in CWJC No. 5988 of 1997 which was disposed of by an order dated 18.10.1997, wherein it was held as follows:- “--- The petitioner is a teacher under the respondent Patna University. The present writ petition has been filed by her for payment of salary for certain period including the period from June, 1993 to 7th July, 1993. 8th July, 1993 to 17th July, 1994 and from Ist September, 1994 to 17th April, 1995. According to the petitioner, she has actually performed the duty during the period from June 1993 to 7th July, 1993 and the period from 8th July, 1995 to 17th July, 1994 has already been sanctioned as leave with pay. However, she has not been paid salary with respect to the aforesaid period. So far as the period from Ist September, 1994 to 17th April 1995 is concerned, it is stated that the petitioner ill and on rejoining she has submitted the medical reports and Medical Board has also examined the petitioner, but no decision has been taken by the respondent Patna University relating to grant of Medical Leave of aforesaid period and payment of salary. According to me the matter requires consideration and decision by the Respondent Patna University at first instance. Accordingly I remit the matter to the Vice Chancellor, Patna University to decide the aforesaid claim of the petitioner. Admitted dues to which the petitioner is entitled be paid within a 3 period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the respondents dispute the claim of the petitioner for any period or part thereof, they will have give to reasons for the same and will communicate such reason to the petitioner. In such case respondents will also decide as to how such period to be counted and what salary to which the petitioner will be entitled for such period. Such decision is also to be communicated and salary to which the petitioner is entitled under law is to be paid within a total period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.” As noted above, there is no counter affidavit and the self contained representation of the petitioner dated 10th May, 2002 as contained in Annexure-10 would go to show that the aforesaid order of this Court dated 18.10.1997 was allegedly not complied by the Patna University and its Vice Chancellor. Inasmuch as, the petitioner by now has already retired from service and the question only relates to payment of her salary, this Court would reiterate its earlier direction directing the Vice Chancellor of the University to take a decision with regard to the grievance of the petitioner as raised in this writ application, if not already 4 redressed, within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Let it be made clear that this Court has not gone into the merit of the case and has remitted the matter back in terms of the earlier direction of this Court. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)