JUDGMENT S.K. Dhaon and R.P. Singh, JJ. - The petitioner, a teacher in a degree College, has invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution, with the prayer that appropriate direction may be issued to the respondents to pay him his arrears of salary from August, 1986 and to continue to pay him his salary from August, 1986 and to continue to pay him his salary in future. 2. We find, that on 7th October, 1986, the District Inspector of Schools Saharanpur sent a communication to the Secretary/Principal of the Raja Mahendra Pratap Prem Mahavidalaya asking them to submit the payment bill of the petitioner so as to enable him (District Inspector of Schools) to pay the salary of the petitioner. A true copy of this communication has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the petition. 3. It is averred that in spite of the said communication sent by the District Inspector of Schools the Principal or the Management of the institution concerned failed to send the necessary papers to the District Inspector of Schools so as to enable the District Inspector of Schools to disburse the salary of the petitioner. 4. Section 60-E of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 makes the State Government liable for the payment of salaries of teachers and employees of every college in respect of any period after March 31, 1975. We, thus find that the primary responsibility is of the State Government. It is true that the Principal of the Institution as well as the Management has adopted an attitude of defiance, but that will not absolve to pay the salary of the petitioner. The net result of the tussle between the District Inspector of Schools and the Management is that the petitioner is being denied his salary. 5. Having considered the matter carefully, we are of the opinion that we should issue a positive direction to the Deputy Director of Education and the District Inspector of Schools, respondents 2 and 3 to take steps within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order by the petitioner before them for the payment of the salary to him. It will be open to either of the two officers to give a final notice to the management and the Principal that if papers are not sent within a specified time, the petitioner will be made from the Management of the institution as envisioned in sub-section (2) of Section 60-E of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. It goes without saying that it will be open to the Deputy Director of Education and the District Inspector of Schools to satisfy themselves that the petitioner is in fact entitled to the payment of past salary as well as in future. 6. We have heard learned standing counsel in opposition to the writ petition. He has put in appearance on behalf of Deputy Director of Education District Inspector of Schools and the State of U.P. 7. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally. 8. A copy of this order may be issued to learned counsel within 48 hours on payment of usual charges.