IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1024 of 2007 USHA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 02/ 02.5.2008 Writ petitioner-appellant, being aggrieved by order dated 01.11.2007 passed by a learned Single Judge in CWJC No.8952 of 2000 dismissing the writ application, has preferred this appeal under Clause-X of the Letters Patent. Mr. S.P.Tewari appears on behalf of the appellant. Writ petitioner - appellant (hereinafter referred to as `the petitioner’) prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus for payment of her salary. According to the petitioner, she was appointed as Teacher in Girls Middle School, Bara in the district of Saharsa. The said school was taken over by order dated 17th July, 1981 along with Teachers working in that school. Petitioner’s name does not find place amongst the Teachers, whose services have been taken over. It was observed that decision in regard to the petitioner would be taken after enquiry as to how she could have - 2 - been appointed at the age of eleven as also of her educational certificate. Thereafter, by letter dated 16th May, 1988, it was communicated that services of the petitioner have been recognized with effect from the date of its issuance but salary shall be paid only after verification of her certificate. In the light of the aforesaid, the matter was enquired and it was found that the petitioner never worked in the school. For coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the initial report submitted to the authority was perused, in which the name of the petitioner did not figure. The name of the petitioner was also not found in the routine of the school, nor her signature was found in the Attendance Register. Further petitioner had not taken any leave during all these long years. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the authority came to the conclusion that the claim made by the petitioner for grant of salary is absolutely unfounded. The learned Single Judge, taking into account the enquiry report and other materials, came to the conclusion that the claim made by the - 3 - petitioner for payment of her salary since 16.5.1988 is not fit to be granted. It also took into consideration that although petitioner had claimed salary since 16.5.1988 but chose to file the writ application on 08.9.2000. Accordingly, it concluded that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches. We do not find any error in the same. Appeal stands dismissed. ( C. K. Prasad, ACJ ) ( J. N. Singh, J. ) A.H.