IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2342 of 2002 ARTI SINHA, W/O SRI A.K. SINHA, R/O MOHALLA- KASHIPUR TAJPUR ROAD, P.S.-SAMASTIPUR, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. ………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE RAJENDRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, PUSA, REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS VICE-CHANCELLOR, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, PUSA, SAMASTIPUR. 2. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, PUSA, SAMASTIPUR, BIHAR. 3. THE REGISTRAR, RAJEDNRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, BIHAR, P.O.-PUSA, SAMASTIPUR. 4. THE DEAN, HOME SCIENCE, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, BIHAR, PUSA, SAMASTIPUR. 5. THE DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATION/DRI CUM-DEAN (PG), RAJENDRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, PUSA, SAMASTIPUR. ……………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 5 27.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the University. Petitioner has filed this writ application for a direction to the respondents to pay her full salary for the period 30.7.1992 to 31.7.1995, as, after due permission of the competent authority, she had pursued her M.Phil course leading to Ph.D. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in similar circumstances some other teachers were allowed leave on payment of full salary for three years to pursue their higher study. Therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for the same. However, from Annexure-9 of the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is apparent that the cases of teachers who were allowed salary for three years to enable them to pursue their higher course, were considered by the Faculty - 2 - Development Committee by the University and upon its decision those persons were allowed to draw full salary of the period. Admittedly there was no decision of the Faculty Development Committee of the University in favour of the petitioner, which is the only competent body in the University to allow such leave with salary. From Annexures-A and B of the counter affidavit of the respondents, it is also apparent that the petitioner’s case was recommended to the Institute as self supporting candidate, therefore, at no point of time University had taken any decision to allow her full salary for the entire period of her study of M.Phil Course. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that there was no decision by the competent body of the University to pay her full salary and in spite of absence of decision of the Faculty Development Committee of the University any provision of Act or Statute of the University makes the petitioner legally entitled for the same. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application and the same is dismissed. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)