Rajeshwari Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.2205 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9673 of 2014 ====================================================== Rajeshwari Devi W/o Late Govind Pandey Resident of Village +P.O. Janta Jaridih, P.S. Birani, District - Giridih (Jharkhand). ... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, (Higher Education), Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Vice Chancellor, Kameshwar Singh, Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga.
3. The Registrar, Kameshwar Singh, Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga.
4. The Vice Chancellor, vinoba Bhave University Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
5. The Registrar Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
6. The Principal Sanskrit Hindu Vidyapeeth, Jharkhand Dham, Jharkhand. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s :
Mr. Binod Kumar Pandey, Adv.
For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey-AAG15 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 08-11-2017 Finding the appellant to have claimed the benefit for payment of arrears of salary from 1.4.1980 to 22.7.1993 after more than three decades, the learned Writ Court has dismissed the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claim of the petitioner was settled in the year 2012 when C.W.J.C. No.14893 of 2008 was decided and in the said claim the House
Patna High Court LPA No.2205 of 2016 dt.08-11-2017 2/2 Rent allowance was not paid and, therefore, she had filed the writ petition. When the claim was already pending in C.W.J.C. No.14893 of 2008, the petitioner should have raised all the claims in the said writ petition and having failed to raise the claim with regard to House Rent allowance in the said writ petition, the learned Writ Court has not committed any error in rejecting the said claim.
In doing so, we are of the considered view, the learned Writ Court has not committed any error warranting reconsideration. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon, CJ) ( Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) K.C.Jha/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 10.11.2017 Transmission Date