Judgment Barin Ghosh, J. 1. The petitioner retired on 31st March, 1997. Subsequent thereto, the Government with effect from 1st January, 1996 revised the pay scale of its employees including the employees of the Universities. Inasmuch as the petitioner was an employee of the University, he also became entitled to his pay revised in terms of the said decision of the Government. In the event the pay of the petitioner is revised, then automatically his last pay stands revised, and accordingly his pension will increase. 2. Since 1999 even till today, the petitioner has not received benefit of such revision, although, the University has revised the pay of the petitioner and has fixed the pension payable to the petitioner on the basis of such revision. Pension is part of the salary which an employee has already earned while in service. This is part and parcel of the salary which an employee has already earned, as aforesaid, while in service. 3. It is surprising that such salaries are not being paid to the employee who is no longer associated with the University, while the salary of the present employees are disbursed month by month. If the University is incapable of discharging its lawful dues due to its employees and cannot find ways and means to overcome the difficulties, it should think of winding up of its affairs so that it is not permitted to keep people waiting for what they are lawfully entitled. A debt which is due and is not paid, but other debts are paid only on the ground that the debts which are being paid have accrued towards people who are presently associated with the University would be against morality. 4. In those circumstances, I permit the respondent University only 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order to release pension in the revised scale to the petitioner less the amount already paid to the petitioner together with statutory interest of 5 per cent; in default the quantum of interest shall stand increased to 10 per cent. 5. The learned counsel for the University after I have dictated the order, submitted that the financial position of the University is such that unless it receives grants from the Government and I.C.A.R. it would not be possible for the University to pay and discharge the salaries pension and other retirement dues payable to the ex-employees. 5. The learned counsel for the University after I have dictated the order, submitted that the financial position of the University is such that unless it receives grants from the Government and I.C.A.R. it would not be possible for the University to pay and discharge the salaries pension and other retirement dues payable to the ex-employees. It has been stated that the University has already approached the funding authorities mentioned above with its budget but funds have not been released and accordingly it may not be possible for the University to make the payment, in time as directed by this Court. 6. How the University will run its affairs is the business of the University. Neither the petitioner, nor the Court has any say in relation thereto. The University, being an employer, it is obliged to discharge its debts due to its employees including past and present. If it cannot pay such debts. It would face consequences and the principal functionaries of the University should be made known that it is their responsibility, for they are in the helm of the affairs of the University. If they cannot discharge the lawful duties of the University, then they must be appropriately advised as to what they should do. They cannot sit in the management of the University and take home their salaries and deny the salaries already earned by ex-employees on the plea of financial crunches. This disposes of the writ petition.