IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9583 of 2003 Vijay Kumar, Son of Sh. Awadheshwar Prasad, Village Sekhopur, Post Shahdei Bujurg, P.S. Desari, District Vaishali, Bihar. ------- Petitioner Versus 1. The Director of State Council of Educational Research and Training, Bihar, Patna (Rajya Siksha Shodh Awam Prashichhan Parishad, Bihar), Mahendru, Patna. 2. The State of Bihar, through the Secretary, Education, Bihar, Patna. 3. State of Bihar, through Finance Commissioner, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource and Development, Department of Education, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. ------ Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner :- None For the State :- Mr. Zaki Haider, A.C. to G.A.10 For the Union of India :- Mr. Binay Kumar Pandey 4 11.1.2010 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsels for the State as also for Union of India are present. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for payment of salary which is claimed to have not been paid to him from March, 1996 onwards. It is not in doubt that the petitioner was allowed to work in the Government establishment known as State Council for Educational Research and Training (in short SCERT). The letter of the Director of SCERT (Annexure-12) would only go to show that the petitioner has been continuously working to the satisfaction of all concerned but still his payment of salary has not been made 2 partly because of the fund being no released by the Government of India and partly because the authorities of the State Government have also not taken any remedial step. Despite the writ application, having remained for more than six years, neither the State of Bihar or its officials nor the officials of the Government of India have filed their counter affidavit. Counsel for the State, however, would submit that the last instruction received by him would go to show that the matter for payment of salary was under the active consideration. Counsel for the Government of India in fact has not received even that instruction. One thing is however clear that the petitioner’s appointment was made by the competent authority even in the scheme being managed by SCERT. The petitioner’s association in such scheme is an admitted fact and therefore, it would not be a valid defence for the authorities of the SCEERT under the control of the State Government that the payment of salary of the petitioner would not be made because the Government of India and its agencies 3 have not released the fund. That in fact is an internal matter between the Government of Bihar and the Government of India for which the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. At the same time, the Government of India keeping in view the object of these laudable schemes is not supposed to keep the matter with regard to the release of fund pending for eternity. It has to take its periodical decision at least once in a year so that the employees working in such scheme have a clear picture with regard to their fate and future. The Government of India may not be directly responsible to these employees engaged in the scheme but then its remaining a mute spectator only adds to the complication. Considering all these aspects of the matter, this Court would direct the authorities to ensure that the issue relating to payment of salary/emoluments for the period of admitted work done by the petitioner must be decided and consequential payment, if any, be also made within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and 4 direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)