IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1752 of 2011 Dr.Bibha Lata Keshri, D/O Shri B P Keshri, resident of Mohalla –M/2, House No.6, Road No.10, P S – Kadamkuan, Rajendra Nagar, Patna- 16, District - Patna Versus 1. The State of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Director, Department of Science & Technology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. ----------- For the petitioner : In person. For the State : Mr. D K Sinha, AAG-II. --- 06. 12 .08.2011 Petitioner has filed the present writ application and appeared in person. She was initially appointed as a Lecturer in Secretarial Practice in Government Women’s Polytechnic, Patna in July, 1987. She was made Principal Incharge of Government Women’s Polytechnic, Muzaffarpur from December, 1997 to February, 2001. She has had to move the High Court earlier for payment of salary and other related dues which was not paid to her. The period in question was May, 1988 to February, 2001 when petitioner was said to be waiting for posting. The High Court disposed of the earlier writ application with a direction that the respondents would decide the claim of the petitioner on an application being filed by her. A speaking order passed on the earlier direction of the Court came to be passed by the Secretary, Science and Technology on 19.12.2008. The respondents rejected the claim of salary for the period May 1998 to February, 2001 on the ground that the 2 petitioner intentionally flouted the order of transfer and did not join the transferred post. Since it was a case of deliberate absence, respondent authorities decided to regularize that period by authorization of extra-ordinary leave so that no break in service would happen having consequence for the petitioner. When a contempt application was filed, Court gave liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said order in yet another writ application. When the present writ application has been filed, the issue which is being raised again now is non-payment of salary for the period May, 1998 to February, 2001 and thereafter from February, 2009 onwards till date. Respondents therefore were directed to respond to the writ application which they have done, as a counter affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5 has been filed. The counter affidavit gives a detailed narration of the circumstances under which respondents were compelled to take a decision not to pay salary for unauthorized absence for the period 1-5-1998 to 28.2.2001. Though this period has been regularized by authorization of extra-ordinary leave in light of the direction of the High Court but the question of payment of salary has already been rejected after due consideration. Nothing new in terms of the evidence has emerged in the present writ application which would compel the Court to interfere with the decision taken by the Secretary on the 3 direction of the High Court earlier, which is Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. To that extent that issue will be allowed to rest. Statement has been made in the counter affidavit that petitioner has again remained on unauthorized absence from 9.7.2007 to 18.7.2007 and on 1.8.2007 for which petitioner was suspended and enquiry was held. Outcome of the enquiry culminated into an order of non-payment of salary for the period in question though the period was not to be treated as break in service and a warning was also recorded in her service book as would be evident from notification dated 11.8.2008(Annexure-B to the counter affidavit). Petitioner was appointed as a Deputy Controller of Examination of State Board of Technical Education, Bihar, Patna. During this tenure many charges came to be levelled against her and a committee was set up to investigate the charges. On enquiry many of the charges were found to be true and recommendation was made to debar her from participating in any examination and confidential work. This decision is dated 3.4.1998 and has been annexed as Annexure-C and D. This notification contained in Annexure-C and D was challenged by the petitioner in CWJC No. 3618 of 2011. Writ application was dismissed and even a cost of Rs.2000/- was imposed upon the petitioner to be realized from her salary in two instalments. Petitioner had claims of certain outstanding dues for 4 the period she had worked in State Board of Technical Education. The aforementioned bills were examined by the department. What was found genuine was paid to her. Some other bills were not found fit to be accepted as their genuineness was not established. When it was rejected on 27.12.2007 the matter travelled to the Lokayukta and the Lokayukta did not find fault with the decision of the respondents which shall be corroborated from Annexure-F and G. The other aspect for non payment of salary for the period February, 2009 onwards, the stand of the respondents is that it is a case of continuous absence from the institute where she was posted and yet another departmental proceeding has been initiated and the outcome of the enquiry will decide the fate of the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary from February, 2009. They, however, said that from December, 2010 salary is being paid to the petitioner. Though much hue and cry has been raised by the petitioner in the manner in which respondents have treated her specially because she belongs to a weaker sex. But the problem in accepting such allegation is that they are not based on facts or evidence which can corroborate the same. The records do not support the allegation. In fact, the conduct of the petitioner has been such that the respondents have been forced to act in the manner contrary to her interest for which she too is to be blamed as would be evident from some of the facts noticed in 5 the earlier part of the order. In the totality therefore, there is difficulty in allowing the benefit which the petitioner is looking for in the present writ application as the Court does not find any illegality as such with the decision taken by the Secretary to refuse salary to her for the period 1998 to 2001. As far the recent period of February, 2009, the matter is under enquiry and the decision to pay the petitioner would be dependent on the outcome of the enquiry. After 2010 petitioner is getting her salary, which is not a matter of dispute. Writ is dismissed in the above stated circumstance. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)