Judgment Aftab Alam, J. This writ petition has been tiled by the Patna University Teachers Association through its General Secretary seeking this Court's intervention in relation to a number of grievances of the teaching staff of the University. The petitioner's grievances are enumerated in para 5 of the writ petition; they are many but simply to give an idea of their nature only some of the issues are mentioned here. These include (i) payment of the teachers' salary not in time but after a dely of several months, (ii) the failure of the University to deposit the provident fund amounts deducted from the salaries of the individual employees and (iii) non-payment of the retiral dues of the teachers on their superannuation. 2. It is important to note that the allegation giving to the aforesaid grievances are not denied either by the authorities of the State Government or by the University who are jointly made respondents in this writ petition. It may also be noted at this stage that the petitioner, seeking the same really had earlier come to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11664 of 1992 which was disposed of by a bench of this Court by order dated 1.12.1992 (copy at Annexure 1). Then, this Court did not go into the merits of the petitioner's claims/grievances and did not issue any positive direction in its favour. It, however, remitted the matter to the Chancellor expressing the desire that the Chancellor should, in the first instance, decide the questions involved in that writ petition after hearing the interested parties including the University and the Government. Following that order the Chancellor heard the petitioner, the University's Vice-Chancellor and the State Government on the petitioner's grievances/claims and disposed of by the matter by order dated 12-3-93 (copy at Annexure 2). In his order, the Chancellor found that the grievances of the petitioner were genuine. He further held that the plea of appointments having been made in the University in excess of the sanctioned number of posts (as was the case of the State Government) could not be a reasonable ground for not making payment of salaries in time and, thus, to penalise even the genuine employees. He further held that the plea of appointments having been made in the University in excess of the sanctioned number of posts (as was the case of the State Government) could not be a reasonable ground for not making payment of salaries in time and, thus, to penalise even the genuine employees. The Chancellor further found that the University had absolutely no excuse for not depositing the general provident fund amounts deducted from the monthly salaries of the teaching and the non-teaching staff in their individual accounts and for its failure to keep up-to-date the general provident fund account of its employees. There was also no explanation from the University for depositing the general provident fund amounts in the savings accounts and not in the recurring deposit accounts and thus causing huge loss of interests to the employees. It was further found that the State Government had reduced the budget of the Bihar College of Engineering without any justification and in giving grants to the University it did not take into consideration the fact that the University's requirements of funds had been constantly growing and increasing on account of revision of pay scales and promotions made in the ranks of Readers and Professors. On these findings, the Chancellor referred the matter to the State Government and the University authorities to take remedial measures for the redressal of the petitioner's grievances within a reasonable time. It is unfortunate that the Chancellor's order failed to move the Government and it appears that the situation remains the same as it was when the petitioner had first come to this Court two years ago. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court once again; this time making an additional grievance that despite the Chancellor's order things remained where they were. 3. Coming back to the petition in hand, we may observe that when this case was first taken up for admission before this bench, it was noticed that separate counter affidavits were filed on behalf of the University and the State. From the counter affidavits filed it unfortunately appeared that the respondents had taken the conventional stance of a litigant. Unable to deny the allegations made by the petitioner, the University and the State Government in their separate counter affidavits adopted a policy of shifting the blame to each other. From the counter affidavits filed it unfortunately appeared that the respondents had taken the conventional stance of a litigant. Unable to deny the allegations made by the petitioner, the University and the State Government in their separate counter affidavits adopted a policy of shifting the blame to each other. The University in the affidavit appeared to lament that for the past several years it received inadequate grants from the State Government In complete disregard of its actual requirements. It was submitted that presently the University was starved of sufficient finances and it was unable to meet the petitioner's grievances unless adequate funds were provided by the State Government. 4. The State Government in its turn submitted that it had discharged its obligations by giving to the University reasonable funds/grants and the present state of affairs was on account of the financial and administrative mismanagement within the University. It was stated that a large number of persons were appointed beyond the sanctioned number of posts and a large number of promotions were given in complete disregard of the legal provisions, incurring, huge financial burden for which the Government could not be held liable. 5. The picture emerging from the pleadings of the parties was quite dismal. It was apparent that the legislative mandates contained in sections 46 to 54 of the Patna University Act, 1978 were being treated both by the Government and the University as a dead letter. We were not happy with the affidavits filed and the attitude adopted by the State Government and the University and we expressed our displeasure in no uncertain terms to the Addl. Advocate General No. II appearing for the State in this case. We pointed out that regard being had to the nature of the case it would be ill becoming the Addl. Advocate General to take an adversarial stance. The Court advised the learned Addl. Advocate General not to approach the case with the object of defeating the petitioner's claim by any means fair or foul but to adopt a conciliatory attitude and to advise his client to see reason and to take care of the petitioner's genuine grievances, if necessary even by straining their resources. We observed that it was not a litigation in the ordinary sense of the term because there was hardly any question of law or facts to be adjudicated upon. We observed that it was not a litigation in the ordinary sense of the term because there was hardly any question of law or facts to be adjudicated upon. The fact that for the past more than two years the employees of the Patna University were being paid their monthly salary after a delay of several months was now well known and was beyond any dispute; the fact that the teachers of this University, who taught persons now occupying exalted offices and high positions in society were themselves facing after their retirement, a situation of want on account of non-payment of their retiral dues, was also well known and beyond controversy; the fact that the University had defaulted in depositing the provident fund amounts deducted from its employees' salaries was also admitted and not in dispute. Hence, the Court was hardly required to adjudicate upon any contested rights of claims and the real task before the Court was to uphold and enforce the mandates of law. The Addl. Advocate General was asked to bear this in mind in assisting the Court in this case. 6. We are glad to note that the learned Addl. Advocate General No. II responded in full measures to our request and played a positive role in this case. At the request of the Addl. A.G. No. II, Mr. K.C. Saha, Secretary, Higher Education and Mr. S.N. Sinha, Finance Commissioner, Government of Bihar are present in Court and we wish to put on record our appreciation of their efforts to redress the petitioner's grievances and of the reasonable attitude adopted by them. 7. On the earlier occasion, we had indicated that among the many grievances of the petitioner, we would take up the following four on a priority basis : (i) Non-payment of the 'employee's monthly salary in time. (ii) Default in the deposit of the provident fund amounts deducted from the salaries of the individual employees. (iii) Non-payment of the retiral dues of the super¥1nnuated employees and (iv) Finalisation of the budget for the year 1995-96. We had also asked the Addl. A.G. No. II to file a brief affidavit, on the aforementioned four issues keeping in mind our observation to adopt a conciliatory attitude in this case. Following this, a counter affidavit has been filed today. 8. We had also asked the Addl. A.G. No. II to file a brief affidavit, on the aforementioned four issues keeping in mind our observation to adopt a conciliatory attitude in this case. Following this, a counter affidavit has been filed today. 8. Taking up the first issue regarding the payment of salary on a regular basis, it is to be noted that the University's employees have been paid their salaries for the month of. September, 1994 and the salaries for the months of October and November, 1994 remains unpaid. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed today on behalf of Respondents 2 and 4 (the Commissioner cum Secretary, Human Resources Development Department and the Director, Higher Education, Government of Bihar) that the salary for the month of October, 1994 has already been released. As regards' the salary for November, 1994, it is stated in the affidavit that the relevant file has been sent to the Finance Department and an order for payment was expected shortly. The Addl. A.G. No. II further updates the information in this regard by informing the Court that the requisite amount for the payment of salaries for the month of November, 1994 has now also been released. The matter so far appeared to proceed well and good. At this stage, the Addl. A.G. II pointed out a stipulation in the counter affidavit that the payment of salary for November, 1994 be made as per the revised fixation of the employees pay on the basis of the recent audit report. This provoked a cry of protest from the petitioner. It was stated that the audit was conducted behind closed doors and the petitioner was not aware of the contents of the audit report. It was, however apprehended that any revision of pay on the basis of the audit report would lead to substantial reduction (to the tune of Rs.1000/- approx.) in the monthly salaries of a vast majority of the University's employees. On this question we heard at length Mr. Addl. A.G. No. II and Mr. K.C. Saha, Secretary, Higher Education on behalf of the State and Mr. On this question we heard at length Mr. Addl. A.G. No. II and Mr. K.C. Saha, Secretary, Higher Education on behalf of the State and Mr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, Senior Advocate and the General Secretary of the petitioner Association and we are .of the considered opinion and we accordingly direct that the University employees must be paid the same salaries for the months of October and November, 1994 as was paid to them for the preceding months of September, August and July, 1994; in other words, they must be paid their 'salaries at the rate at which they received their salaries prior to the re-fixation of their pay, alluded to in the counter affidavit. It is further directed that the employees would continue to receive their salaries at the pre-revised rate till the issue of revision of pay is fully resolved in a lawful manner either in the University's budget for the year 1995-96 or more preferably on the finalisation of the question of time bound promotions in the light of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Patna University v. Awadh Kishore Prasad Yadav, reported in 1994 Suppl. (2) SCC 250 : 1994 (2) PLJR 11 (SC). In this regard, we would further like to remind the respondents State and the University, that any re-fixation of pay of the University employees must strictly abide by the direction of the Supreme Court given in the aforesaid judgment. 9. At this stage, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the Patna University submitted that the amount mentioned in the counter affidavit (filed today on behalf of respondents 2 and 4) as being provided for the salary of November, 1994 was apparently calculated on the basis of the revised pay and would therefore, not be sufficient to cover the. payment of salaries of the employees at the existing rates as directed by this Court and unless further directions were issued in this regard, there may not be much change or improvement in the situation and the University may find itself in a position unable to comply with this Court's directions on account of inadequate funds given by the State Government. We find substance in this submissions and accordingly we further direct that out of the funds received from the Government towards the payment of salaries for the months of October and November, 1994, the full salary for the month of October, 1994 shall be paid to the employees within one week from today. As regards the deficit for payment of salary for the month of November, 1994, the University and the State authorities shall together work out the exact amount without any delay. The deficit amount shall be provided by the Government to the University by December 31, 1994 and the employees shall be paid their salaries for November, 1994 by January 7, 1995. The salaries for the subsequent months shall also be paid similarly and in due time for which adequate funds shall be released by the Government in time. It is made clear that out of the money received from the Government for payment of monthly salary to the employees, no amount, small or large, would be diverted by the University for any other purpose and it shall be utilised only for the payment of monthly salaries to the employees. 10. Coming back to the question of the amount relating to the provident fund deductions, it is stated in the counter affidavit that the Government was willing to provide a sum of Rs.2,97,64,291/- to make good the default. The General Secretary of the Petitioner-Association submits that this sum did not take into account the deferred dearness allowance payable to the employees having a monthly salary of more than Rs.3500/- which was to be deposited in the provident fund accounts. We do not wish to enter into the detail of accounting but it is clear that in case the dearness allowance has been shown as paid to the employees (with salaries more than Rs.3500/- per month), then it is naturally to be deposited with the provident fund and in all such cases where the dearness allowance has been shown as paid to the employees, that amount must be taken into account to determine the total figure not deposited with the provident fund. In case, however, dearness allowance has not been shown as paid to the teachers, then the amount lies either with the University or with the State Government and in that case there would be no question of taking that amount into account for determining the total figure to be deposited with the provident fund. The University is directed to determine in consultation with the State Government that total amount which it has defaulted in depositing with the provident fund. The total amount so determined shall be furnished by the State Government by 28-2-1995. It is made clear that the University shall under no circumstance divert a single farthing from this fund and it must be immediately and directly deposited in the respective provident fund accounts. Any diversion of this money shall entail very grave consequences. 11. As regards tile next issue relating to the retiral dues of the employees, the affidavit discloses a sum of Rs.2,13.90 lacs and expresses a willingness to give this amount to the University within' a reasonable time. Counsel for the University however, points out that this figure is in respect of the employees retiring upto 16-4-1992 and this figure would also slightly increase on account of the employees retiring after 16-4-1992 and this figure would also slightly increase on account of the employees retiring after 16-4-1992. The exact amount under this head must also be finalised by the University in consultation with the State officials. Requisite funds for setting the retiral dues of the employees must be furnished by the State Government to the University by 15-4-1995. On receipt of this fund, the University will expeditiously settle all the retiral dues of the employees superannuated from service. It is, however, to be noted at this stage that the re-fixation of pay etc. may have a direct bearing on the fixation of pension and other retiral dues and in case on account of re-fixation of pay, it is found necessary to re-fix and re-adjust the retiral dues, the same would be made and the excess amount, if any, paid to the employees would be recoverable from the future pension of the concerned employees. 12. Coming now to the question of the annual budget of the University, we find that no annual budget has been prepared for the past several years. 12. Coming now to the question of the annual budget of the University, we find that no annual budget has been prepared for the past several years. We feel shocked and distressed at the complete disregard shown by the State Government and the University to the legislative mandates. The omission to finalise the annual budget is not only a violation of section 49 of the Patna University Act but appears to us to be at the root of most of the financial irregularities which has over the years led to the present sorry state of affairs. We put on record our grave anxiety in this regard and direct the University and the State Government that the annual budget for the year, 1995-96 must be finalised in time and in accordance with law. The Addl. A.G. No. II, the Finance Commissioner and the Secretary, Higher Education assure this Court that they will take all steps towards the finalisation of the budget proposal for the year 1995-96. Unfortunately, however, it appears that there is a default on the part of the University in this regard and the budget is yet to be submitted to the State Government. We accordingly direct the University to submit the budget for 1995-96 without any delay and as far as possible before December 31, 1994, whereupon as stated by the State officials, it will receive due consideration and examination by them and shall be finalised in accordance with law. 13. At this stage, we would like to record that in giving the above directions we have taken into consideration the submissions, suggestions and prayers made on behalf of all the concerned parties. We have even appreciated the co-operation shown and the positive attitude adopted by them. Nevertheless the directions given above are in the nature of order from this Court and the failure to comply with them would, therefore, entail all legal consequences. 14. We must also clarify that we are not issuing any directions in respect of many other grievances and claims of the petitioner in this case. We have taken up only the four major issues as indicated above as we are of the opinion that unless remedied in time, the situation may so worsen as to pose a threat to the very survival of the University and the University may also go the way of so many Statutory Corporations in this State. We have taken up only the four major issues as indicated above as we are of the opinion that unless remedied in time, the situation may so worsen as to pose a threat to the very survival of the University and the University may also go the way of so many Statutory Corporations in this State. As regards, the other grievances/claims, the petitioner will be free to agitate them before the University authorities and the State Government and we hope and trust that they would receive due consideration by the authorities. We are also of the opinion that the finalisation of the next year's budget would go a long way in establishing financial discipline in the University and that in itself would remedy many of the petitioners grievances. 15. Before parting with this case, we would like to record that we are not unconscious that in the present state of the State's financial position our direction compelling the Government to give so much money to this University, possibly after causing diversion of its limited resources, may adversely affect some other Governmental schemes and projects and, thus, albeit indirectly may even unfavourably affect some other segments of the society. We are also not unmindful that a criticism may be levelled that we have simply taken a slice of the bread and handed it over to the University employees without any consideration whether the bread was large enough to go round and satisfy the needs of all the members of the society. Our answer is simply this that if we wish to save our youth from sinking more deeply into the mire of violence and lawlessness, it is a small sacrifice that we must make. The migration of the talented students of this State, atleast those who can financially afford it, to Delhi and the other States in pursuit of their college education is now well known. It is a matter of grave concern as it causes its own distortions in academic and social lives. If we wish to reverse this trend, we must pay a small price and try to bring the University back to life by putting it on the proper financial rails. Our order to give money to the University is, therefore, intended to be an investment in future. If we wish to reverse this trend, we must pay a small price and try to bring the University back to life by putting it on the proper financial rails. Our order to give money to the University is, therefore, intended to be an investment in future. Viewed in this light, we are not conferring any favour on the University employees but casting on them an onerous responsibility. We hope that the University employees will realise the heavy burden that this Court places on them and will live up to their assigned role and will not let down the hope and trust that this court reposes in them. 16. With the aforesaid observations and directions this application stands disposed of.