Chittranjan Prasad Sinha v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21885 of 2011 =========================================================== Shail Devi, wife of late Chittranjan Prasad Sinha, Resident of Village Ektara, P.S. Arer, District Madhubani. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Bihar.

3. The Vice Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga.

4. The Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga.

5. The Finance Officer, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga.

6. The Principal, R.N. College Pandaul. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, AC to SC-2 For the University : Mr. A. B. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Niraj Raj, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 13-09-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and State and the University.

2. The instant writ application has been filed by the original petitioner for quashing of the letter dated 28.07.2007, whereby the husband of the petitioner was reverted from the post of Lecturer to Demonstrator.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits the fact that during the pendency of the writ application, the status of the original petitioner was restored as Lecturer.

4. In view of the above, the main grievance of the original petitioner raised in the present writ application stands redressed by the respondents and as such the Court does not find any

Patna High Court CWJC No.21885 of 2011 dt.13-09-2018 2/2 justification to enter into the academic issue.

5. The second prayer in the writ application that the original petitioner should have been paid the salary admissible at the rate of 8000-13500/-, which was the salary admissible to the Lecturer, the matter is required to be examined by the University.

6. The University is well advised to workout the entitlement of the husband of the petitioner on the basis of the pay scale admissible to the lecturer and ensure payment thereof, if not already paid, to the original petitioner or substituted petitioner till date. In the event, there is any error in calculation of the entitlement of the original petitioner or any grievance as to the payment of arrears has not been addressed by the University, liberty shall be available to the substituted petitioner to file representation before the University and the University may consider the same objectively and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four months from the date of filing of such representation along with a copy of this order. With the aforesaid, the writ application stands disposed of.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Uday/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 17.09.2018 Transmission Date