IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16015 of 2001 MIRA SRIVASTAVA . Versus THE V.C.,BIHAR UNIVERSITY &ORS . ----------- 8 11.8.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. This is the second round of litigation at the instance of the petitioner. Earlier the petitioner had come before this Court by filing CWJC No. 6242 of 1989 with a prayer that despite the fact that she is working continuously as Peon In-charge of Girls Common Room at Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial College, Ghorasahan but she is not being allowed to put her signature on the attendance Register, and salary is not being paid. Further prayer was to regularize her service against the sanctioned post of Peon. This writ application was disposed off with observation and direction to the Vice 2 chancellor, B.R.A.Bihar University to dispose of the representation of the petitioner within two months from the date of filing of such representation. Subsequently the Registrar B.R.A. Bihar University sent the letter to the petitioner on 13.12.1990 to appear before the Enquiry Officer for consideration of her claim for regularization of her service. She appeared before Enquiry Officer and finally the University vide its order dated 22.11.1991 regularized her service the post of Girls Common Room In-charge and she is being paid her salary with effect from 22.11.1991. Present writ application has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to make payment of arrears of salary with all consequential benefits for the period 5.2.1981 to 22.11.1991. Petitioner's case is that she was appointed by the Governing 3 body and thus she started working with effect from 5.2.1981 against the sanctioned post of Peon, Girls Common Room In-charge, as such on account of her working against the sanctioned post she is entitled for her salary with effect from 5.2.1981 to 22.11.1991. Counter affidavit as well as supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University. In the counter affidavit of the University, there is complete denial regarding the claim of the petitioner that she was appointed and she is working with effect from 5.2.1981. In Para 4 of the counter affidavit it is stated that from the records of the College, it is disclosed that prior to November, 1991 she was not working and there was no vacant sanctioned post available for her appointment till that date. On account of retirement of Rajballav 4 Singh, Night Guard, from JLNM College the vacancy was made available with effect from 22.11.1991 and the petitioner was appointed/adjusted on that post. Prior to that date, petitioner had never worked against any sanctioned post as such she cannot claim for payment of her arrears of salary for the earlier period. Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has placed reliance on a letter dated 10.5.1984 issued by the Registrar, B.R.A Bihar University, relating to the matters of approval of appointment, regularization and payment of salary to the petitioner. In this letter it is mentioned that the Governing body of the college appointed her with effect from 27.5.1980 and she assumed her duty on 3.7.1980. Since, she was serving the Institution regularly against the post sanctioned by the State 5 Government, she is entitled for regular salary but she is not being paid her salary by the University. It is also mentioned in the letter that other staff appointed by the Governing body on the sanctioned post on the same date are getting their salary but surprisingly it is being denied to the petitioner. Request was made for giving approval to the appointment of the petitioner and also to make payment of regular monthly salary to her. In the counter affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavit of the University, there is neither any denial or admission so far Annexure-3 dated 5.4.1984 is concerned. The University however, has placed reliance on Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit which indicates that the attendance Register of the years 1980,1984,1985 to 1988 till January 6 1991 to November, 1991, do not show that petitioner was also one of the employees of the college, duly discharging her duty and in support of that signing the attendance register. The signature of the petitioner on the attendance register is available with effect from 28.12.1991 and not prior to that. Considering the fact that rival documents have been annexed, as such it is desirable that the case of the petitioner be considered at the level of the University itself. The University will examine all connected records/documents in this regard and in case it is found that Annexure-3 is a genuine document and the petitioner has discharged her duty with effect from the date she was appointed by the Governing body i.e. 3.7.1980, the respondent University will decide her claim in a positive manner and will allow her the arrears of salary as well as 7 other consequential benefits. In case on the other hand, it is found that the document Annexure-3 is a manufacture one and the petitioner has never worked against the sanctioned post with effect from 3.7.1980, there is no reason for allowing benefit claimed by the petitioner. The Vice Chancellor as well as Registrar of the University will pass all necessary orders in this regard within six months from the date of production/communication of this order and in case of rejection of petitioner's case reasoned order will be passed by the University. The writ application stands disposed off with the aforesaid observation. (Mridula Mishra,J.) A.Kumar