Judgment S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. The petitioner, Employees Union of Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Committee (Union for short) has prayed for direction on the State of Bihar to pay the differences of pay and allowances as already allowed by the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Committee (Committee for short) to which employees of the Committee are entitled with effect from 1st January, 1991 in parity of scale of pay and other allowances as admissible to the employees of other Boards under the State of Bihar including the Bihar Khadi Board. The letter No. 1068 dated 24th February, 1993 whereby the State of Bihar communicated the rejection of the prayer, has also been challenged. 2. The Committee was constituted by the State of Bihar under Section 4 of the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Committee Act, 1954 (Act for short). Under the said Act while the Chairman and Members of the Committee are appointed by the State Government, the power of removal and dissolution of the Committee is also vested with it. So far as appointment of employees of the Committee is concerned, power has been delegated to the Committee to frame regulations under Section 24 of the Act. Sub-section (d) to Section 24 of the Act, while deals with power to frame regulation in respect to employees, sub-section (c) therein relates to power of Committee to prepare its budget estimate. The Committee has already framed regulation known as "Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Regulation 1960" (Regulation for short). Therein, under Regulation 30, while the manner in which the personal fund of the Committee is to be created has been laid down, Regulation 14 stipulates the expenditures which can be made out of aforesaid personal fund. So far as the power to appoint different officers and employees of the Committee and number of posts are concerned, such power has been laid down under Regulation 22, followed by Regulation 23, wherein power has been delegated to the Committee to prescribe scale of pay for such posts. 3. It appears that the petitioner-Union was registered on 5th June, 1986 and looking towards the interest of the employees of the Committee, who are about 200 in numbers working on full time basis and performing duties. 3. It appears that the petitioner-Union was registered on 5th June, 1986 and looking towards the interest of the employees of the Committee, who are about 200 in numbers working on full time basis and performing duties. On 25th December, 1980, a meeting was held under the Chairmanship of the Hon'ble Revenue Minister of the State of Bihar, in which the Commissioners of Revenue and Finance Departments of State of Bihar were present, apart from the members of the Committee. In the said meeting, a decision was taken and it was decided to provide dearness allowances to the employees of the Committee in parity with the scale of pay as admissible to the employees of different Boards/Corporations under the State of Bihar. After such decision, a letter No. 1140 dated 24th April, 1985 was issued by the State of Bihar communicating the decision relating to revision of pay of officers and employees of the Committee and intimated that the matter was pending consideration before the State Government. A direction was given to revise the scale of pay in the meantime, in terms with scale of pay granted to the employees of different Boards/ Corporations under the State of Bihar. 4. According to the petitioner-Union, on receipt of details of admissible allowances and salaries of various Boards/ Corporations, a meeting was held on 27th December, 1989 under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Chief Minister along with Hon'ble Revenue Minister and other officials, namely, Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Finance Department and Chairman of the Committee with its Secretary, wherein it was decided to provide revised scale of pay to the employees of the Committee in parity with the scale admissible to the employees of the Boards/Corporations under the State of Bihar. On calculation, the Committee found that for payment of difference of pay scale to the employees, a sum of Rs.13,71,336/- was required and made requisition to the State. The Revenue Secretary and Finance Commissioner were directed to submit the file before the Hon'ble Chief Minister for his approval. On calculation, the Committee found that for payment of difference of pay scale to the employees, a sum of Rs.13,71,336/- was required and made requisition to the State. The Revenue Secretary and Finance Commissioner were directed to submit the file before the Hon'ble Chief Minister for his approval. From January, 1991 to March, 1991, a sum of Rs.8,31,826.80 p. was to be released by the State and for the period from April, 1991 to March, 1992, a sum of Rs.24,83,429.50 p. and then for the period from April, 1992 to March, 1993, another sum of Rs.25,59,180.38 p. was to be released by the State of Bihar, which was to be deposited as pledged money in the accounts of the employees of the Committee. For financial year 1993-94, the difference of pay and allowances was Rs.44,12,304.40 p. which was to be pledged in the accounts of the employees. The grievance has been made that although a sum of Rs.1,02,86,743.08 p. was due to be paid to the Committee against the head "differences of pay and allowances" for payment to its employees from January, 1991, but the same was not released in favour of Committee resulting non-payment of arrears to the employees. 5. The counsel for the petitioner-Union relied on Act and Regulation. According to him, there was no source of income laid down for the Committee except the Regulations 13 and 14, which is dependent on "donations, gifts, loans etc." None of the aforesaid source is in the hands of the Committee to meet its expenses. The Committee is dependent on the good-will and wishes of others, including the State of Bihar. The State Government all the time issued directions for distribution of lands of the Committee to landless persons and no charge is being taken for such distribution of land. In the budget provision of the State of Bihar for "Bhoodan Yagna work" and "Gramdan work" though certain amount is earmarked as aid to the Committee but such aid being meagre, in comparison to the requirement of Committee for its proper functioning, the Committee could not pay the salary and other allowances to its employees in parity with the scale of pay as provided to the employees of the Boards/Corporations. 6. 6. According to the Respondents-State, the discussions and deliberations as held in the meeting dated 25th November, 1980 and 27th November, 1989, cannot be stated to be a decision of the State Government. The grievance of the employees of the Committee was considered but because of financial exigency, the State of Bihar was not in a position to fulfil such commitment. By letter dated 4th October, 1993, such decision was communicated, which has been challenged. Earlier, another writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 12323 of 1993 was filed by certain employees of the committee, wherein this Court directed to consider the matter where-in-after a decision was taken and communicated by letter dated 30th September. 1995, whereby the Union was intimated that the State of Bihar was not in a position to allow parity of scale of pay and other allowances to the employees of the Committee, as is admissible to the employees of different Boards/Corporations under the State. Further stand of the State is that the Committee has been constituted under an Act and the service condition and other matters of the employees of the Committee are different than the employees of Boards/Corporations. In the supplementary counter affidavit, it has been specifically stated that the Committee is entitled to create its own fund and it being a voluntary organisation, the State Government or the Central Government is not liable to pay the salary to the employees of the Committee. Whatever, the amount they can collect to run the committee and its administrative affairs, they collect from the sources like 'grant-in-aid' from the State or Central Government or any other source, including taking loan from outside. So far as preparation of budget of the State of Bihar is concerned, according to the Respondents-State, such budget is prepared taking into account, the grant-in-aid, which can be given to the Committee. The budget for such grant was prepared for Rs.23.71 lacs for which there is no difficulty to release the amount. The State has denied any direct liability to pay the salary, difference of salary and allowances to the employees of the Committee. The budget for such grant was prepared for Rs.23.71 lacs for which there is no difficulty to release the amount. The State has denied any direct liability to pay the salary, difference of salary and allowances to the employees of the Committee. According to them, it is the Committee who is entitled to pay the same out of their own fund and the revision of pay as made by the Committee with effect from 1.1.1991, was so made without any approval of the State Government and in their decision, it was mentioned that it was subject to release of grant from the State of Bihar. So far as release of grant-in-aid for the financial year 1997-98 is concerned, it is stated that the budget has been prepared to release the same in two instalments. The first instalment has already been released and the second instalment would be released on receipt of utilisation certificate from the Committee in respect to first instalment already released. In the counter affidavit, the State of Bihar has also criticised the functioning of the Committee. According to it, the Committee is not functioning in proper manner and distribution of lands to the landless is meagre. In other neighbouring States like Orissa and Uttar Pradesh, while more than 90 per cent lands have been distributed by their Committee, in the State of Bihar, the Committee has cleared only 2189 cases, which were confirmed during last 28 years. The matter has been taken into consideration by the State and has already been communicated to the Chairman of the Committee vide letter dated 24th July, 1990. 7. According to the counsel for the Committee, the whole source of income of the Committee is based on grants, loans etc. and there is no other source to create fund. It was accepted that the employees of the Committee are entitled for parity of scale with the employees of other Boards/Corporations having similar designation and performing the same work. According to it, though a substantial amount is released by the State, they are not in a position to release any amount, in accordance with the decision of the Committee, which is to be paid with effect from 1.1.1991. 8. Both the counsel for the petitioner and the State relied on one or other decision of the Supreme Court. According to it, though a substantial amount is released by the State, they are not in a position to release any amount, in accordance with the decision of the Committee, which is to be paid with effect from 1.1.1991. 8. Both the counsel for the petitioner and the State relied on one or other decision of the Supreme Court. Reliance was placed by counsel for the petitioner in the case of All India Imams Organisation (A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 2086), wherein the Supreme Court held that in absence of any provision in the Act or Rules, laying down conditions of service, nature of job of Imams being such that they are entitled for remuneration from the Wakf Board and the said Board cannot shirk its responsibility on the ground that it was not in a position to pay the remuneration. 9. In the case of K. Krishnamacharyulu and others (A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 298) as relied by the counsel for the petitioner, the Supreme Court allowed the parity of scale to teachers of Private Educational Institutions at par with the employees of the Government as the Institutions were catering to element of public interest. 10. In the case of Unni Krishnan J.P. and others (1991 (1) S.C.C. 645), the Supreme Court held that even the private educational bodies receiving grant from Government, grant being public fund, such private bodies are obliged to act fairly in consonance with Part-III of Constitution and the Regulations framed by the Government. 11. From the aforesaid decisions, as referred by the counsel for the petitioner, it can be safely stated that the employees of the Committee, who are members of the petitioner-Union, are also entitled for salary at par with the employees of the State and its undertaking, particularly, when main grant-in-aid is being provided by the State of Bihar and it is a creature of the State of Bihar. 12. So far as the case of Swapan Kumar Choudhary and others vs. Tapas Chakravorty and others (A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 662) as referred by the counsel for the State is concerned, it is not applicable in the present case, as the employer of the members of the petitioner-Union i.e. the Committee has already decided the question of parity of scale and issued order to that effect giving effect from 1st January, 1991. 13. 13. In the present case, the only question to be determined is as to whether the State of Bihar is bound to release the full amount for payment of salary to the employees of the Committee, including the salary in the revised scale of pay or not? The answer is obviously in negative. The Committee was created by the State of Bihar under the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954 to facilitate the donation of lands in connection with Bhoodan Yagna as was• initiated by Late Acharya Binoba Bhave to provide land to landless persons. It was promulgated in public interest and it can be termed as a socio economic legislation. Though the Committee can be termed to be a 'State'/'Authority' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, it cannot be stated to be a part and parcel of the State of Bihar. At best it can be stated to be a wing of the State of 3ihar for implementation of socio economic justice to landless poor people. The Committee is an autonomous corporate body clothed with full power as provided under the Act, 1954. Under the said Act, no commitment has been made by the State for running the affairs of the Committee/Organisation (Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Committee). It is for the said reason the Committee itself has framed Regulation for creation of fund, wherein they have only stipulated few sources of income which includes grants; subventions; donations, and gift from State/Union Government and others. Thereby, it can be safely stated that the State of Bihar has got no direct liability to release any fund for payment of salary and allowances to the employees of the Committee, though it is the duty and responsibility of the State to see that the Committee runs properly and/or otherwise to abolish the same. 14. However, as, in the present case, the State of Bihar has accepted to release grant-in-aid in favour of the Committee for creation of its funds in terms with the budgetary allocation of State of Bihar, in each and every financial year, according to me, such budget and allocation should be made on the basis of criteria which has got nexus for the release of amount and cannot be made in an arbitrary manner. If the scale of pay of one or other category of employees of the Committee is taken into consideration as one of the factors for determination of allocation of fund in budget and release of grant-in-aid, in that case, the State of Bihar must take into consideration the revised scale of pay/ scale of pay to which such category of employees are entitled. It is only when the State of Bihar finds any illegality or irregularity in determination of scale of pay or in the matter of payment to employees more than the strength as the Committee requires, then the State of Bihar may ask the Committee to explain the matter and on receipt of reply, can decide the question. For example, if the State of Bihar feels that a number of employees appointed in the Committee or post created by the Committee is excess to the normal staffing pattern, it may well advise the Committee to look into the matter to bring the strength of employees within staffing pattern to facilitate the state to release grant-in-aid on the basis of such strength. 15. Accordingly, the Respondents-State of Bihar is directed to reconsider the matter and take a decision relating to release of grant-in-aid, taking into consideration the parity of scale of pay/revised scale of pay, as made by the Committee, strength of employees of the Committee and other aspects and release such amount, which may suffice the Committee to run its administration in proper manner. 16. A decision, in this respect be taken and admitted grant-in-aid be released in favour of the Committee, on an early date, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. 17. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. However, on the facts and in the circumstances, there shall be no order, as to costs.