Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for State and the Zila Parishad. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner, who retired as Road Works Sarkar, from Zila Parishad, Bhojpur at Ara on 31.1.2002, is aggrieved on account of non-release of the gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund and salary for the period October, 1997 to January, 2002. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Deputy Development Commissioner, the charge of which post is presently held by the District Magistrate in addition to his own duties, and the Chairman of the Zila Parishad (respondents no. 2 and 3 respectively). The usual plea of paucity of fund has been taken for non-release of the retiraf dues. 4. I fail to appreciate as to how such plea is available to an employer. It is the liability of the employer to ensure payment of the due salary and retiral dues without which the employer cannot expect from the employee to discharge his duties with all sincerity and honesty. This only depicts complete mess prevailing in Zila Parishad and functioning of Zila Parishad for meeting the object is completely frustrated by taking such defence of paucity of fund. The employer cannot function if paucity of fund is taken as a ground for denial of payment of lawful dues of its employees. If there is paucity of fund for payment of the retiral dues of the petitioner, the Zila Parishad cannot function until they get over it. 5. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances, this Court directs the respondents not to disburse payment of the dues of anyone including the Chairman, other Members of the Zila Parishad and officials, and the District Magistrate, who is presently holding the additional charge of the post of the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, shall also not receive any salary and other emoluments till fund becomes available for payment of retiral dues of the petitioner. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.