IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3189 of 2004 Jyoti Narayan Singh (since deceased), son of late Ambika Singh resident of village + P.O. + PS – Pakari Dayal, East Champaran at present retired senior to Incharge Branch Manager, Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited, Budh Marg, Patna Versus 1. The Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank, Budh Marg, Patna-1 through its Administrator. 2. The Administrator, Bihar State Land Development Bank, Budh Marg, Patna-1. ---------------------------------- 16. 08.12.2011 I.A. No. 8257 of 2011 has been filed by the legal heirs as the original petitioner has died. Let the name of the legal heirs indicated in para 1 of the interlocutory application be substituted in place of the original petitioner. Original petitioner is one of the unfortunate employees who had served the respondent Land Development Bank to the best of his ability which also begot him order of promotion and other benefits from time to time on the basis of the notifications contained in Annexure-1 and 2. But those benefits remained only on paper because the corresponding payments which should have been made over to the petitioner by virtue of those orders never came. Annexure-1 is dated 22.7.1995 and Annexure-2 is dated 28.8.1998. When except for assurances nothing came to be done by the bank, the present writ application came to be filed in the year 2004 and after much delay counter affidavit has come to be filed, which does not deny the basic claim of 2 the petitioner or the existence of the benefit which was made over to the petitioner in terms of Annexure-1 and 2. The reason for not making payments to the petitioner pleaded in the supplementary counter affidavit is paucity of fund. According to them, they are wholly dependant on the State Government in regard to fund and as and when money will be made available, petitioner will get what is rightfully due to him. Statement has also been made that the bank has been consistent in its non-performance of its obligation across the board with regard to many an employee and to that extent they have not discriminated by not paying to the present petitioner because all the employees are in the same soup. With due respect to the counsel representing the respondents taking que from the observation made by the Hon`ble Apex Court in matter relating to BISCOMAUN that right or claim of an employee is one thing and inability to pay is yet another thing. Merely because respondents plead paucity of fund it does not mean that Court would not pass or give a direction for payment especially when there is no denial of the claim or assertion of the right by a citizen against the respondents. This Court is not required to go into the financial position of the respondent Bank or even the reason why it went sick but the fact is that an employee cannot be made or expected to work without payment of his salary or other 3 allowances to which he is entitled to. Grant of benefit in terms of Annexure-1 and 2 could have been a management policy to buy peace and to appease the employee in question but that appeasement cannot last long if follow up action is not taken by actual payments which are supposed to accrue on the basis of those benefits. Petitioner in the supplementary rejoinder application filed on 20th June, 2011 has categorically crystallized his claim in para 5 (a), (b) & (c). None of these issues as such are matter of dispute with regard to entitlement. In this view of the matter writ is disposed of with a direction upon the Managing Director that he has an obligation to work out the liability in terms of the money due to the original petitioner against the heads mentioned in para 5 (a), (b) & (c), as noted above and make payment within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this order. The Court makes it clear that paucity of fund is not going to be a ground for non-payment and if the occasion arises the matter will be viewed seriously. The benefits will accrue in favour of the wife of the petitioner who has been substituted as legal heirs in his place. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)