IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13907 of 2006 Smt.Bimla Devi, wife of late Parmeshwari Prasad Yadav, a resident of village & P.O. Sahugarh Morkahi, P.S. Madhipura, District Madhipura … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director Primary School Education, Bihar, Patna 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Saharsa 4. The District Superintendent of Educaiton, Madhipura 5. The Headmaster Surendra Madhya Vidyalaya Ward No.3, Madhipura … Respondents ----------- 4. 6.7.2011 Having heard counsel for the parties and taking into account that the petitioner being the widow of a teacher who having a cause of action for payment of his salary for the period 1.1.1971 to 18.2.1976 did not choose to take any judicial remedy and ultimately died also on 10.11.2002, this Court would find it difficult now to entertain a belated writ application for payment of salary of the husband of the petitioner for the aforesaid period of 1.1.1971 to 18.2.1976, especially when the petitioner is not in a position to produce the letter of the Director bearing No. 1083 dated 10.11.1975 as also of the District Superintendent of Education, Saharsa bearing No. 4652-56 dated 19.2.1976, whereby and 2 whereunder a decision had been communicated for payment of salary of the husband of the petitioner only with prospective effect i.e. 18.2.1976. It thus becomes clear that writ application so far it relates to payment of salary is belated by 30 to 35 years and a cause of action of the year 1971 to 1976 could not have been agitated by filing this writ application on 16.11.2006. It is however true that the petitioner is still suffering in the matter of fixation of her pension because even if the husband of the petitioner is not allowed the payment of salary for the period 1971- 1976 she might still gain in the matter of payment of retirement benefit of her husband and therefore, this Court would give liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority only for the purpose of refixation of her pension in case she would be in a position to substantiate the recommendation made by the District Superintendent of Education, Madhepura in his letter no. 2515 dated 29.12.1990 allegedly giving recognition of the service of the husband of the petitioner with effect from 1.1.1971. 3 In the event the petitioner would file a self contained representation enclosing necessary evidence as with regard to either take over or recognition of the services of the husband of the petitioner with effect from 1.1.1971 and the authorities would find the petitioner’s husband was entitled at least for fixation of salary with effect from 1.1.1971, they would take consequential steps for payment of death cum retirement benefit in the revised pay by taking into account pay fixation of the husband of the petitioner made with effect from 1.1.1971. It is made clear that this Court has not decided the aforesaid issue of revision of pension on merit but at the same time the District Education Establishment Committee must look into all aspects and decide the matter with regard to payment of death cum retirement benefit to the petitioner, after the death of her husband in harness and if it is found that by refixation of pay of the husband of the petitioner with effect from 1.1.1971 there would be any further entitlement of the 4 petitioner to receive any additional amount under the various heads of the death cum retirement benefit, an appropriate decision would be taken for payment of such arrears and current amount within a period of six months of filing of the representation by the petitioner alongwith a copy of this order. It is again made clear that the petitioner in no event will be entitled for payment of arrears of salary of the husband of the petitioner for the period 1.1.1971 to 18.2.1976 but only to enhanced amount of death cum retirement benefit, if any. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/