IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2455 of 2006 Veena Sharma, W/o Sri Vinay Kumar Sharma, resident of Village Jitwariya, P.S. & P.O. Kalyanpur, Dist. Samastipur, at present working as Assistant Teacher Basic School, Somnaha, P.S. Kalyanpur, Dist. Samastipur. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner, Primary Secondary and Mass Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Darbhanga. 5. The District Education Officer, Samastipur. 6. The Headmaster of Basic School, Tora, Kalyanpur P.S. in the district of Samastipur. ---------- Respondents ------ 5 14.12.2011 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into account that the petitioner seeks to challenge an order dated 26.12.1998 by filing this writ application in the month of February, 2006, this Court would find the delay of more than seven and half years to be fatal for maintaining this writ application. Even on merit, this Court would not find any justification for allowing the petitioner’s claim for payment of arrear of salary. The petitioner’s services were terminated whereafter she had come to this Court and this Court did not find any merit in her case but, had merely remitted the matter back by giving some directions as given 2 in the case of other teachers including Hira Prasad Rai. From Anenxure-4 to the writ application, it would transpire that even Hira Prasad Rai was given such benefit from prospective date and in his case payment of salary was started from 1st of January, 1996 by issuing an order allowing his joining on 31.12.1995. Therefore, if the petitioner was also allowed the same benefit by an order dated 26th of December, 1998 of acceptance of her joining and payment of salary from the date of appointment, she cannot be allowed to claim salary for the period she had remained out of service, inasmuch as, this Court did not allow such claim. The order of this Court dated 24th April, 1998 in CWJC No. 7248 of 1996 very specifically has only provided for consideration of the case of the petitioner on the same basis as of Hira Prasad Rai and others as would be evident from the following relevant passage of the aforesaid order:- “13. Though this Court found that Hira Prasad Rai and others were not validly appointed but it appears that in the light of the aforesaid direction Hira Pd. Rai and others, who are similarly situated have been retained in service by regularizing their services. In the 3 counter affidavit it is admitted that the services of the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 7194 of 94 have been regularized by the Special Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar and Regional Dy. Director of Education, Darbhanga in the light of the order passed by this Court vide Annexure- 12 and the same treatment could not be given in the case of the petitioner as she was not the party in that writ application. 14. The fact that the case of the petitioner is similar to the case of Hira Prasad Rai and others whose services have been regularized is not in dispute. The petitioner is a lady. She has been working for a long period of time and as such there is no justification to give her different treatment as has been given to the persons similarly situated. 15. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts I am of the view that the case of the petitioner should also be considered in the same way for regularization as well as for payment of salary etc. as of Hira Prasad Rai and others and accordingly I direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the observation made above and pass an appropriate order within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of 4 this order.” As a matter of fact, when this Court, in the earlier round of litigation, had only bestowed some sort of compassion to the petitioner, she cannot claim even payment of salary by way of her right for the period she had not even worked. This Court did not interfere in the order of termination and, therefore, termination order was held to be valid and, accordingly, if there was a direction for reconsidering the case of the petitioner for being taken back in service, that would not mean that the order of termination was also set aside. Considering all these aspects and specially the inordinate delay of more than seven years, this Court must hold the present writ application to be wholly misconceived. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)