JUDGMENT : Mishra, J.- This writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to pay the pensionary benefits to the petitioner who has retired as Principal from S.V.A.N. College, Jehanabad on 31st of December, 1992. 2. Shortly stated the case of the petitioner is that initially he was appointed as a lecturer in R.S.College, Tarapur in the district of Bhagalpur on 20th of November, 1961 and after continuous service of 31 years and one month he retired from the service as Principal from the College, in question on 1st of December, 1992. It is alleged that after retirement the petitioner approached the respondents times without number for payment of the legal dues but for the reasons best known to them, the payment has not been made so far. According to the petitioner the entire provident fund amounts, the related Pass Book are with the Magadh University. The total amount of dues legally payable to the petitioner has been mentioned in Annexure-6 to this writ application which reads thus : "That the amount of dues of the petitioner, as per the account done by him on various heads of dues comes as follows:- The petitioner has filed due and proper application for the release of these dues to the University. (i) On account of pension per month Total @ 4,000/- per month from the Rs. 48,000/- date of superannuation till Dec. 93 (ii) Gratuity based upon 31 Rs. 81,375/- years 1 month of continuous service (iii) Salary due for the period Rs. 19,500/- Oct. 92 to Dec.92 (iv) Leave encashment six Rs. 31,500/- Months (v) Deferred D.A. and Others Rs. 1,36,000/- Rs. 3,16,375 Total Rs. 48,000/- (Three lacs sixteen thousand three hundred and seventy five alongwith interests on the above amount of Dues @ 18% per annum, from the date of above became dues, till the date of actual payment.)" 2. The petitioner after retirement had sent several representations and then reminders thereon to pay the retiral dues and also personally met the Vice-Chancellor, Registrar and Finance Officer of the University, in question, but no steps had been taken by the respondents inspite of the assurance given by the University authority from time to time as a result the instant writ application has been filed for the relief sought for as mentioned above. 3. 3. In this case no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State respondents. The respondent University however has filed counter affidavit wherein, inter alia, it is stated that the College in question was made constituent in the fourth phase in the year 1986. Subsequently the Committee was constituted by the Bihar Legislative Council to enquire into the irregularities committed in the appointment of the teaching and non-teaching staff in colleges which have been made constituent in the fourth phase including the college, in question. It is stated that the State Government has issued a direction not to pay the legal dues to the retired employees unless the final report is submitted by the said Committee. The liability to pay the pensionary benefit to the petitioner has not been denied by the University in its counter-affidavit rather the claim of the petitioner has been accepted and accordingly made a request to the State respondents for according permission to pay the retiral benefits to the petitioner. But the State has not responded to the request of the University and as such, expressed its inability to pay the retiral benefits in view of the directions issued by the State Government. From the pleadings of the parties it is apparent that the liability to pay the retiral benefits to the petitioner had not been denied. However, the payment has been withheld till date only due to non-submission of the report by the committee constituted by the Legislative Council. It may be mentioned here that the so-called committee was constituted in ORDER :to enquire into the illegalities committed in the initial appointment of the teaching and non-teaching staff of different colleges which was subsequently made constituent in fourth phase in the year 1986. As stated above, the petitioner was initially appointed as lecturer in the year 1961 itself and thereafter he was promoted from one post to another and finally retired as Principal of the college. There is no allegation whatsoever during the entire period of his service that he was either appointed illegally or on nonsanctioned post. The salaries were being paid to the petitioner all through during his service period and was promoted from Lecturer to Reader and then Professor and ultimately to the post of Principal. There is no allegation whatsoever during the entire period of his service that he was either appointed illegally or on nonsanctioned post. The salaries were being paid to the petitioner all through during his service period and was promoted from Lecturer to Reader and then Professor and ultimately to the post of Principal. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the appointment of the Principal on the post of Lecturer was irregular one. Had there been so, he could not have been promoted from one post to another during his service tenures. Mere constituting the committee to enquire into the irregularities of initial appointment will not justify the stand of the respondents State and/or the University to hold the legal dues payable to the petitioner by way of retiral benefits. That apart, the alleged committee constituted by the Bihar Legislative Council has no statutory sanction to enquire into such alleged irregularities regarding the appointment of the teaching and non-teaching staff of various colleges and that too, at this belates stage. I am supported by a Division bench decision of this court in the case of Bihar Rajya Mahavidyalaya Shikshak Avam Shiksheketar Karamchari Kalyan Mahanangh vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 1997(1) P.L.J.R. 533 wherein it has been held that the House Committee constituted by the Bihar Legislative Council cannot and will not have any statutory sanction to decide the illegality or otherwise of the appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff. In view of the ratio of the case aforesaid, even if it is assumed that the committee submits an adverse report, the same cannot be acted upon by the respondent University since such report will not have any legal sanctity in the eye of law. As stated above, the liability to pay the pensionary benefit to the petitioner has not been denied either by the State Respondents or by the University and as such, the admitted dues, legally payable to the petitioner cannot be withheld on such flimsy grounds. 4. Accordingly, I direct the respondents University to pay all the admitted dues legally payable to the petitioner within six weeks from the receipt/production of a copy of this ORDER :. 4. Accordingly, I direct the respondents University to pay all the admitted dues legally payable to the petitioner within six weeks from the receipt/production of a copy of this ORDER :. Since the petitioner has retired in December, 1992 and even the admitted dues, has not been paid so far, he is entitled to the interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of respective payments alongwith the cost which is assessed at Rs. 2500/-. Both interest and the cost shall be paid to the petitioner alongwith the principal amounts within the time aforesaid. 5. In the result, this writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above.