IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1047 of 2002 DR.SHOBHA GHOSE Wife of Prof. Naresh Chandra Ghosh, resident of A/104, Charminar Apartments, Road No.12, Rajendranagar, P.S. Kadamkuan, District and town of Patna. Versus 1.The STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Secretary, Higher Education Depatment, Government of Bihar, New Secretariate,Patna. 3.The Commissioner and Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 4. The Accountant General, Bihar, Veer Chand Patel Marg, Patna- 80001. 5.The Principal, Government Womens College, Gulzarbagh, Patna City, District-Patna. ----------- 8 2/7/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Bereft of all the niceties, the petitioner a teacher in Govt. Girls College, in this writ application after her retirement from service on 31.1.2001 has raised a number of her grievances as with regard to certain service conditions including payment of salary and allowance. As a matter of fact the petitioner has confined her grievances by limiting her claims on the following four heads:- (a)First time bound promotion; (b)Arrear of salary from 1.1.1986 to 31.7.1986; (c)Three additional increments on the ground of holding research experience and Ph.D degree; (d)Fixation of her pay after interim relief. It is not in doubt that the petitioner came to be appointed in service on 11.4.1981 in a Government College. Neither the petitioner nor counsel for the State are aware muchless 2 sure about status of the petitioner as to whether she was member of Bihar Education Service or was an employee of Government College having similar facility of payment of salary and emoluments as to the teachers of the University. Some vague pleadings, have been made by both the parties but there is nothing direct to the clinch the main issue on the basis of which the aforesaid four claim of the petitioner could have been effectively adjudicated. This Court would find that after more than six years of filing of the writ application the State Government awoke and redressed one of the aforementioned four grievances by granting first time bound promotion as would be evident from order dated 24.12.2008. The petitioner, however, is not satisfied with the same and it is her claim that she ought to have been given higher pay scale of Rs. 3,700/- to Rs. 5,700/-. According to her the rest of three claims have not even been looked into and decided by the competent authority of the State Government. It is however not in doubt that cause of action for all the claims including time bound promotion of the petitioner had arisen during her continuance in service in the years 1989 to 1991. Normally, such belated claim could not have been even entertained by this Court on the ground of inordinate delay of more than 10 years, but then if the respondents have themselves issued an order of promotion on 24.12.2008 they are now bound to also examine other claims of the petitioner. 3 There being however absolute lack of clear pleadings on the aforementioned four claims of the petitioner, this Court is not in a position to decide them one way or the other. In that view of the matter, this Court can only direct the respondents to consider them if the petitioner files a comprehensive self contained representation supporting her claim with documentary evidence. The petitioner, therefore, if so advised may file a representation in relation to the aforesaid four claims, which will be examined by the concerned respondents and decided in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Let it be made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and has simply remitted the matter as there is absolute lack of materials on which this Court could have decided the aforesaid claims of the petitioner. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application is finally disposed of. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)