Judgment S.K. Cbattopadhyaya, J. Failure to adjust the antena to the operative channel and dipping the bead like the proverbial ostrich in the sand so as not to view the changing kaleidoscope of the law can alone be said to be responsible for this trivial matter to be brought to the High Court. 2. As all the petitioners, either working or retired, are employees of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity the Corporation) have approached this Court to ventilate their grievances of non-payment of salary etc. and retirement benefits, a significant question of law arises for decision in all the applications-whether the Corporation can refuse to pay the salary to its working employees and post-retirement benefits to the employees, who have retired long back, merely on the plea of paucity of fund. 3. To decide the point with consent of the parties, all the applications have been heard together and this common judgment will govern the same. 4. The respondent-Corporation does not deny the fact that the petitioners or, indeed, other employees of the Corporation arc entitled to payment of salary, retirement benefits etc. However, a strange and peculiar stand has been taken by the Corporation that until and unless the State Government comes forward to rescue the Corporation from its financial constraints, the respondent is not in a position to discharge its legal obligation by paying the employees, because the Corporation is running in loss and cannot generate fund from its own resoures. 5. Mr. S.P. Gadedia, learned senior counsel, has taken the lead in advancing the cause of all the petitioners and he has been followed by tae counsel appearing of behalf of each of the petitioners individually. 6. Learned counsel strongly contended that when admittedly the petitioners are/were the employees of the Corporation, they are entitled to get the amount because their such entitlement is guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Secondly, he continues, that the Corporation being the employer cannot shirk its responsibility of payment by taking a plea that it is not in a position to pay due to resource constraints. Last, but not the least, counsel submits, that when poor employees like the petitioners are starving with their family members, those occupying high position in the Corporation like its Chairman, Managing Director are drawing flat salary without any hindrance, which clearly proves victimisation of the employees. 7. Mr. Last, but not the least, counsel submits, that when poor employees like the petitioners are starving with their family members, those occupying high position in the Corporation like its Chairman, Managing Director are drawing flat salary without any hindrance, which clearly proves victimisation of the employees. 7. Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the Corporation, countering the above argument, submits that the Corporation being a creature of a statute through which the State is carrying on the trade and business, the ullimate liability rests on the State. With reference to various sections of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (the Act in short) and particularly Article 298 of the Constitution of India and Rules of Executive Business, counsel submits that the business relating to the Corporation having been described by the State Government itself as to the advantages offered to the public, trade and industry by the development of road transport and having regard to "the desirability of coordinating any form of road transport with any other form of transport", has established the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation by notification in Official Gazette, and therefore cannot take any different stand when it comes to determining its liability in matters relating to the Corporation. According to him, the Corporation is not only the agency or instrumentality of the State through which the State carries on its trade and business, but their employees also hold civil posts and as such entitled to protection of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III and the State, at the same time, is bound to follow the Directive Principles of State Policy as laid down in Part IV of the Constitution. Advancing his argument; Mr. Singh further submits that the State being the principle employer cannot disown the liability of its agency or instrumentality created by it. Concluding his argument, learned counsel has referred to the Order of the Apex Court dated 1.10.1996 in Civil Appeal No. 7290/1994, wherein their Lordships, having noticed "that the Corporation is a habetual defaulter regarding non-payment of retirement benefits to its retired employees as well as in the matter of payment of salary and other allowances to its employees" directed for constitution of a committee of senior Government officers and to submit its report to the Supreme Court within three months. Mr. Mr. Singh, on these premises ventures to contend that as long as the Supreme Court is monitoring the matter and gives a positive direction in this regard, High Court should not pass any order/direction to the respondents for payment. However, Mr. Singh has not been able to show that any such report has been submitted by the committee till date. 8. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned Government Pleader No. 2 the other hand, strongly contended that only because the corporation is created under a statute, it cannot be said to be an agency or instrumentality of the State as the Corporation is acting on its own while doing its trade and business and it is the responsibility of the Corporation to generate its own fund for payment of the employees. It is his submission that an employer cannot be heard to say that due to non availability of fund it is not in a position to meet the expenses. 9. Before averting to the respective submissions advanced at the Bar, it would be useful to state briefly the history of legislation upon the subject, as the same will be helpful in finding out the intention of the legislature in enacting the Act. As noticed above the Corporation has been established under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 to provide for the incorporation and regulation of Road Transport Corporation. Such Road Transport Corporations have been established throughout the country by different States and the provisions of those Acts are in part material with the provisions of the Act under consideration. Scope and object of such Acts fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. The Income Tax Officer, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1486 . Scope and object of such Acts fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. The Income Tax Officer, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1486 . While interpreting different provisions of the Act, their Lordships held that the income derived from its trading activity by the A.P. Road Transport Corporation is not the income of the State of Andhra Pradesh within the meaning of Article 289 (1) of the Constitution and hence it is not exempt from Union Taxation in paragraph 20 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has dealt with different sections of the Act in extenso and come into findings in paragraph 21 that "far from making any provision which would make the income of the Corporation the income of the State, all the relevant provisions emphatically bring out the separate personality of the Corporation and proceed on the basis that the trading activity is run by the Corporation and the profit and loss that would be made as a result of the trading activity would be the profit and loss of the Corporation." With particular reference to Section 38 (2) (c) and Section 39 (2) of the Act, their Lordships have held that the income is undoubtedly the income of the Corporation. 10. At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that in the above case before the Supreme Court, the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation also intervened along with other Road Corporations. 11. On the back drops of said authoritative pronouncement, it is crystal clear that the Corporation, though statutory, has a personality of its own and this personality is distinct from that of the State or other share holders. To quote their Lordships, the doctrine that a Corporation has a separate legal entity of its own is so firmly rooted in our notions derived from Common law that is hardly necessary to deal with it elaberately. Thus, in my view, there is no ambigmity in the provisions of the Act which requires to left the veil from the face of the Corporation. 12. Thus, in my view, there is no ambigmity in the provisions of the Act which requires to left the veil from the face of the Corporation. 12. Once it is found that the Corporation has a separate personality and the income derived by it from the trading activity is its own income, Ultimate crux of the problem is to determine whether the Corporation is bound to discharge its legal obligation by paying salary and retirement benefits to its employees or not. In the case of State of Kerala vs. M. Padmanabhan & ors, reported in 1985 (1) SCC 429 , the Supreme Court has observed that pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but have become, under the decisions of the Court Valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment. Thus, if pension and gratuity are valuable rights and property in the hands of retired employees there can not be any doubt that receiving salary and other emoluments are fundamental lights of every employee and to deprive them of such rights by the employer will be violation of such fundamental rights and the Court can issue mandamus for such payment. 13. The argument advanced on behalf of the Corporation that due to non-availability of adequate fund the employer is unable to make such payment, in my view, is not sustainable. It is really sound obnoxious that an employer will get service from the employees for doing its trade activities but when the question of payment of salary will arise, the employer will say that, 'Look, as I have no money I cannot pay you'. Similar is the position when and employee after serving his employer honestly for a long period retired with the hope that he would get a lump sum amount by way of retirement benefits, but the employer refuses to pay on the plea that it is facing financial crisis and thus not in a position to make payment of such amount. In this context, I may usefully refer to a off quoted observations of Hon'ble Mr. In this context, I may usefully refer to a off quoted observations of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Desai of the Supreme Court (as he then was) in the case of D.S. Nakara & ors vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1983 SC 130 , which run thus :- "With a Slight variation to suit the context Wolsey's prayer: "had I served my God as reverently as I did my King, I would not have fallen on these days or penury" ; is chanted by petitioners in this group of petitions in the Shellian tune: I fall on the thorns of life I bleed' Old age, ebbing mental and physical prowess, atrophy of both muscle and brain powers permeating these petitions, the petitioners in the fall of life yearn for equality of treatment which is being meted out to those who are soon going to join and swell their own ranks. " 14. In a recent decision, in the case of Manikant Pathak & ors and analogous vs. State of Bihar (CWJC Nos. 1718/94 & 5015/96), a Full Bench of this Court had the occasion to consider the question as to whether the State Government is liable to pay the salary and allowances of a Government company. In that case also, Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh appearing for the petitioners Company, had contended that as the State is carrying on the trade and business in the garb of a company, the ullimate liability rests on the State irrespective of the fact that the concerned company Corporation are incorporated under the Companies Act. In that case also, Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh appearing for the petitioners Company, had contended that as the State is carrying on the trade and business in the garb of a company, the ullimate liability rests on the State irrespective of the fact that the concerned company Corporation are incorporated under the Companies Act. The Full Bench, referring to number of decisions of the Apex Court and this Court, by its judgment dated the 19th March, 1997, while noticing the distinction between Government companies created by statute, called statutory Corporations, and the corporations companies incorporated under the Companies Act, inter alia, held that "suffice it to say that so far as the question of liability of the State in the context of employees of statutory Corporations is concerned, it would depend on the provisions of the statute concerned." Though on the facts of those cases, the Bench was inclined to hold that it is really the State Government which has been carrying on the activities through those corporations and the corporations are like "extension counters" of the Government Departments, but even then in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union vs. State of Bihar ( AIR 1970 SC 82 ), refused to direct the State Government to pay salary to the employees of the Corporations. 15. No decision has been brought to my notice by the respondent's counsel where either the Supreme Court or this Court has held that the State is responsible for the liability of the Corporations like the present one. 16. Having noticed that the Corporation has its own separate entity and itself is responsible for profit or loss, the Corporation is bound to make payment to its employees both working and retired. There is no provision in the Act that in order to meet its legal obligation, the Corporation can fall back upon the State Government for financial help. Financial inability cannot be a ground for the Corporation to disown its such responsibility As regards plea of the resource constraints, less said the better. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that where as in all most all the States, the Road Transport Corporations are earning profits, the Bihar Road Transport Corporation, it is said, running in loss. The reasons for such need not be over emphasised. 17. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that where as in all most all the States, the Road Transport Corporations are earning profits, the Bihar Road Transport Corporation, it is said, running in loss. The reasons for such need not be over emphasised. 17. It is also to be noted that even if .the Supreme Court has directed for constitution of a Committee for submitting a report, but the Court has not given any direction to the effect that unless report is submitted, no payment should be made. On the other hand, it is admitted at the Bar that pending submission of the said report, this Court directed payment to the employees by the Corporation. 18. Be that as it may, whether the Corporation is earning profit or incurring loss need not be gone into in this case inasmuch as it is the prime responsibility of the Corporation to pay its employees, who are either working for the Corporation or who have retired after serving it for a long period 19. Having given my anxious consideration to the facts and laws I am of the view that no writ of mandamus or direction can be issued to the State Government for releasing fund to the Corporation for discharging its obligation towards the employees. The plea for non-availability of fund is no ground for the Corporation to make payment to the petitioners in such situation, in the tune of Full Bench decision (supra), I direct the Corporation to make payments to the petitioners within a period of four months from today. The State Government is directed to file a petition for winding up the Corporations in this Court under Section 433 of the Companies Act if the Corporation is unable to pay salary or amount of retirement benefits to its employees within the said period and revive itself as viable enterprise, so that the assets of the Corporation may be sold and the salary etc. are paid to the employees, in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act. 20. In the result, all these writ applications are allowed with above directions However, no order as to costs. Applications allowed.