Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. - (1.) In my view, on the ground of delay alone this writ petition should be dismissed. It is dated November 17, 2006, and it has been taken out seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to pay salary arrears that were allegedly payable to the deceased teacher for the period from January 1, 1987 to February 29, 1992. While the first petitioner claims to be the widow of the deceased teacher, the second petitioner claims that he is the son of that gentleman who died on October 14, 1997.
(2.) Counsel says that appointment of the deceased teacher was approved with effect from August 01, 1987. He says that since the salary arrears remained unpaid, the district inspector of schools by a letter dated February 9, 1995 requested the director of school education to release the billed amount. His further argument is that in view of orders made on May 17, 1990 in the writ petition filed by the deceased teacher, and on January 29, 1992 in the appeal arising out of the order of the single judge, the deceased teacher became entitled to get salary arrears.
(3.) There is nothing to show that appointment of the deceased teacher was approved (as an organising member of the staff of the institute, that was recognized) making him entitled to get salary arrears from January 01, 1987. The approval order has not been produced. Even assuming that service of the deceased teacher was approved with effect from August 01, 1987 he would not have been entitled to salary arrears, unless a direction for that was specifically given in the approval order. It appears that the approval order was issued sometime after February 29, 1992. Perhaps for these reasons no salary arrears were given to the teacher.;