Judgment Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners in all these writ applications are employees of various Command Area Development Agency. Some of the petitioners are working with Sone Command Area Development Agency and others under Gandak Command Area Development Agency (hereinafter to be referred to as the Agencies). These Agencies were established under resolution of the Government dated 1.10.1975. Subsequently vide, an Ordinance promulgated in the year 197 5 a statutory status was granted to these Agencies. It was finally converted into The Bihar Agricultural and Rural Area Development Agency Act 1978 i.e. Act 3 of 1979. In terms of this legislation, the Agencies are autonomous bodies in their own right and they have a Board of Directors for administration and control over these Agencies under Sec. 39 of the Act. These Agencies have powers to make Rules and Regulations for its governance the same is subject to prior approval of the State Government. 3. To meet the objects of these Agencies Central Government gives grant of 50% and the balance 50% is met by the State Government. The 50% grants received from the Central Government carries a rider that only 20% of the same shall be utilised on establishment whereas the rest has to be spent on various projects which are executed by these Agencies. The Agencies were supposed to create infrastructure for irrigation and other facilities within the command area of the concerned river to facilitate enhancement of agricultural output. 4. From the very beginning there have been two set of employees working with these command Agencies. One set were those who were appointed by the Agencies at their own level and the second set were those who were sent on deputation from Government of Bihar. For those who were sent on deputation from Government of Bihar they were treated as employees of the State of Bihar and, therefore, their service conditions, payment of salary etc. was responsibility of the State. For those employees who were appointed by the Agencies their payments used to be made by the Agencies from the grants received from the Central and the State Government released from time to time. 5. Case of these petitioners are that at no point of time the Agencies as such made their own Rules and Regulations. For those employees who were appointed by the Agencies their payments used to be made by the Agencies from the grants received from the Central and the State Government released from time to time. 5. Case of these petitioners are that at no point of time the Agencies as such made their own Rules and Regulations. In the initial years itself resolutions were taken by the respective Boards to adopt the Rules and Regulations as available under Bihar Service Code and other related Rules in this regard. Initially there was difference in the pay scales which were being received by those working on deputation from the State Government and the employees of the Agencies. In case of Sone Command vide a resolution dated 15.2.1990 a decision was taken to pay revised pay scale to the employees of the Agency at par with the Government employees. In another decision dated 17.5.1990 the Board also decided to pay D.A., house rent allowance and other allowances to the employees of the Agencies as were available or applicable to the State Government employees. Case of the petitioners are that thereafter they have been getting revised scales whenever a revision was effected for the State Government employees. Last of them seems to be revision from 1.1.1996. 6. In later part of 2001 a meeting was held in the Agriculture Department for approval and release of money for the purpose of implementation of several schemes under Central Sponsored Development Work to be implemented by these Agencies. In this meeting some serious objections seems to have been raised with regard to payment of wages, salary and some emoluments to the employees of the Agencies. A Committee was supposedly setup to enquire. On 14.2.2002 the Secretary, Agriculture, Government of Bihar wrote a letter to various Command Agencies to supply information and the outlay both on revised and unrevised scales. Further communication dated 5.3.2002 contained in Annexure-13 was sent directing the Agencies to furnish details of wages and salary for the month of February 2002 on the basis of unrevised scale to the employees of the Agencies and on the revised scale with regard to the persons on deputation working with the Agencies. Further communication dated 5.3.2002 contained in Annexure-13 was sent directing the Agencies to furnish details of wages and salary for the month of February 2002 on the basis of unrevised scale to the employees of the Agencies and on the revised scale with regard to the persons on deputation working with the Agencies. From the narration thereafter in these writ applications various decisions were taken which did culminate into a kind of direction issued by the State and the Department of Agriculture to pay wages and salary to the employees of the Agencies on the unrevised scale only. The employees, therefore, moved various authorities under the State of Bihar including the Chief Minister by way of a representation but nothing as such seems to have come out as such. The petitioners, therefore, were compelled to file the present writ applications. They submit that they had been getting salary and allowances on revised basis from the year 1981 and, therefore, the Governments decision of reducing the same or not paying the revised scale in the 2002 was an arbitrary decision violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 7. Decision of the State Government not to grant revised pay scale or allowances to employees of the Agencies has been challenged by the petitioners on various grounds. Grounds are discrimination, right of parity with the State Government employees in the given historical background, applicability of the Bihar Service Code and other related Rules to the employees of the Agencies by virtue of an earlier resolution of the respective Boards and also legitimate expectation in the background that earlier revisions in pay scales made for the State Government employees benefitted the employees of the Agencies also. 8. In support of the above propositions counsel for the petitioners relied on two decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh V/s. State of Haryana and the case of Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh V/s. State of Haryana , to show that there has to be parity in emolument. In these cases teachers of recognised aided primary schools vis-a-vis teachers of Government schools were ordered to be paid same salary. In these cases teachers of recognised aided primary schools vis-a-vis teachers of Government schools were ordered to be paid same salary. This Court, however, is of the opinion that these decisions are of no help to the petitioners because in the above cases the Hon ble Supreme Court did find that there was no difference in the work being done by the teachers of the two institutions. Principle of equal pay for equal work governed the issues. In the present case it is not the case that the two sets of employees working under the Agencies are shouldering identical responsibilities and nature of work. 9. Petitioners rely on yet another decision in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Verma V/s. State of Bihar . Counsel for the petitioners rely on this decision to show that in a statutory body like State Electricity Board it was not open to the State Governments to give directions in the working of these institutions. This decision has been relied upon in the given background that the Agencies have been taking decision in the past to revise the pay-scales at their level and the same have been implemented, if not accepted by the State Government. 10. Various counter affidavits have been filed in these cases on behalf of the State at directions of the Court on several dates earlier. The basic stand which they have taken in support of their decision not to allow the Agencies to give a revised pay-scale or emoluments at par with the Government employee is that the Agencies have been receiving grants from the Government for specific purpose and with specified conditions. It is not open to the Agencies to misutilise these grants by diverting the allocations to the head of salary and to meet establishment expenditure. In fact they categorically state that for all practical purposes these Agencies have become defunct. The object and purpose for which these Agencies were created have lost their meaning and or a long period of time the entire grants is being gobbled up under the salary and establishment heads. Even the Central Government has drastically reduced its allocation in this background and State Government is having difficulty in making additional allocations at par with the demands being made by these Agencies. Even the Central Government has drastically reduced its allocation in this background and State Government is having difficulty in making additional allocations at par with the demands being made by these Agencies. Large scale irregular and illegal appointments have been made by the Agencies and now they want to transfer the burden of meeting their expenditure on to the State Government. The State Government surely has an obligation but it is a limited one and the employees of these Agencies cannot be given status or parity with the State Government employees. In fact they further take a stand that if the Agencies have adequate resources at their own level then they can meet the obligations and the State Government has no objection to the same so long as it is not shifted or transferred on to the State Government. They are free to enjoy their autonomy. 11. Learned Additional Advocate General No. II submits that pay revision is not a matter of right and since the Agencies are not an extension of the Government then financial capacity of the employer is an important consideration while granting such indulgence to its employees. Employees cannot claim that their pay must be revised and the Government should meet the additional expenditure incurred due to such revision. The above submission of the learned Additional Advocate General No. II is based on a recent decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of A.K. Bindal V/s. UOI . Learned Additional Advocate General No. II submits that no doubt the above decision in question, was given in a matter related to Public Sector Undertakings but the Agencies too are having similar or independent legal identities. The ratio of the case, therefore, applies to the present case as well. In this regard attention of the Court is drawn to paragraph 17 and 18 of the above decision, which are quoted hereinbelow for ready reference: 17. The legal position is that identity of the government company remains distinct from the Government. The government company is not identified with the Union but has been placed under a special system of control and conferred certain privileges by virtue of the provisions contained in Sections 619 and 620 of the Companies Act. Merely because the entire shareholding is owned by the Central Government will not make the incorporated company as Central Government. The government company is not identified with the Union but has been placed under a special system of control and conferred certain privileges by virtue of the provisions contained in Sections 619 and 620 of the Companies Act. Merely because the entire shareholding is owned by the Central Government will not make the incorporated company as Central Government. It is also equally well settled that the employees of the government company are not civil servants and so are not entitled to the protection afforded by Article 311 of the Constitution (Pyare Lal Sharma V/s. Managing Director). Since employees of government companies are not government servants, they have absolutely no legal right to claim that the Government should pay their salary or that the additional expenditure incurred on account of revision of their pay scale should be met by the Government. Being employees of the companies it is the responsibility of the companies to pay them salary and if the company is sustaining losses continuously over a period and does not have the financial capacity to revise or enhance the pay scale, the petitioners cannot claim any legal right to ask for a direction to the Central Government to meet the additional expenditure which may be incurred on account of revision of pay scales. It appears that prior to issuance of the office memorandum dated 12.4.1993 the Government had been providing the necessary funds for the management of public sector enterprises which had been incurring losses. After the change in economic policy introduced in the early nineties, the Government took a decision that the public sector undertakings will have to generate their own resources to meet the additional expenditure incurred on account of increase in wages and that the Government will not provide any funds for the same. Such of the public sector enterprises (government companies) which had become sick and had been referred to BIFR, were obviously running on huge losses and did not have their own resources to meet the financial liability which would have been incurred by revision of pay scales. By the office memorandum dated 19.7.1995 the Government merely reiterated its earlier stand and issued a caution that till a decision was taken to revive the undertakings, no revision in pay scale should be allowed. By the office memorandum dated 19.7.1995 the Government merely reiterated its earlier stand and issued a caution that till a decision was taken to revive the undertakings, no revision in pay scale should be allowed. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity, legal or constitutional in the two office memorandums which have been challenged in the writ petitions. 18. We are unable to accept the contention of Shri Venkataramani that on account of non-revision of pay scales of the petitioners in the year 1992, there has been any violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The scope and content of this article has been expanded by judicial decisions. Right to life enshrined in this article means something more than survival or animal existence. It would include the right to live with human dignity. Payment of a very small subsistence allowance to an employee under suspension which would be wholly insufficient to sustain his living, was held to be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution in State of Maharashtra V/s. Chandrabhan Tale. Similarly, unfair conditions of labour in Peoples Union for Democratic Rights V/s. Union of India. It has been held to embrace within its field the right to livelihood by means which are not illegal, immoral or opposed to public policy in Olga Tellis V/s. Bombay Municipal Corporation. But to hold that mere non-revision of pay scale would also amount to a violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 would be stretching it too far and cannot be countenanced. Even under the industrial law, the view is that the workmen should get a minimum wage or a fair wage but not that their wages must be revised and enhanced periodically. It is true that on account of inflation there has been a general price rise but by that fact alone it is not possible to draw an inference that the salary currently being paid to them is wholly inadequate to lead a life with human dignity. What should be the salary structure to lead a "life with human dignity" is a difficult exercise and, cannot be measured in absolute terms. What should be the salary structure to lead a "life with human dignity" is a difficult exercise and, cannot be measured in absolute terms. It will depend upon the nature of duty and responsibility of the post, the requisite qualification and experience, working condition and a host of other factors. The salary structure of similarly placed persons working in other public sector undertakings may also be relevant. The petitioners have not placed any material on record to show that the salary which is currently being paid to them is so low that they are not able to maintain their living having regard to the post which they are holding. The observations made in paras 276 and 277 in Delhi Transport Corpration V/s. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress strongly relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioners, should not be read out of its context. In the said case the Court was called upon to consider the constitutional validity of Regulation 9 of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952, which gave power to terminate the services of an employee after giving one months notice or pay in lieu thereof. The termination of services of some of the employees on the ground that they were inefficient in their work by giving one months notice was set aside by the High Court as in its opinion Regulation 9(b) gave absolute, unbridled and arbitrary powers to the management to terminate the services of any permanent or temporary employee and, therefore, the same was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was in this context that the aforesaid observations were made by one Hon ble Judge in his separate opinion. The issue involved was not of revision of pay scale but that of termination of services which has an altogether different impact on an employee. He also relies on another decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurjeewan Garewal (Dr.) V/s. Dr. Sumitra Dash . This was a case of an employee of P.G.I., Chandigarh. The Hon ble Supreme Court in this case held that merely because there is some State funding or certain control by the State are being exercised on the institution it does not mean that employees of such an institution is holder of a civil post. Sumitra Dash . This was a case of an employee of P.G.I., Chandigarh. The Hon ble Supreme Court in this case held that merely because there is some State funding or certain control by the State are being exercised on the institution it does not mean that employees of such an institution is holder of a civil post. According to the Additional Advocate General drawing from the analogy of the above case petitioners cannot claim that they are civil servants/Government employees and, therefore, parity in pay is their matter of right. 12 Learned Additional Advocate General further relies on yet another decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Food Corpn. of India V/s. Bhanu Lodh . He relies on this decision for the purpose that Government has a right to issue directions to such bodies which are receiving grants from them. Since these Agencies have been receiving grants from the State Government, therefore, they were justified in issuing directions not to pay revised pay-scales to its employees specially in the accepted position that these Agencies do not have the financial capability to meet even its day-to-day expenses. Based on the above ratios of these three cases, the learned Additional Advocate General, therefore, submits that petitioners have no case to demand and receive revised pay-scales at par with Government employees. He further states that merely because in the past due to availability of better resources the benefit had accrued to the employees of these Agencies, it does not mean that they have a fundamental right to continue to receive benefits at par with State Government employees. 13. Shorn of all other controversies which had arisen in these cases, reflections of which are there in the past ordersheets, this Court has decided the issues on a clean slate with due dispassion. It is not in dispute that there are two sets of employees working under the Agencies, one on deputation from the State Government and the other appointed by the Agencies at the local level. Majority of these employees are in Class III and IV category. The employees on deputation cannot be treated to be at par with the employees appointed by the Agencies. 14. Majority of these employees are in Class III and IV category. The employees on deputation cannot be treated to be at par with the employees appointed by the Agencies. 14. If the recent Supreme Court decisions which have been referred to by the learned Additional Advocate General is considered to be the law then surely the petitioners do not have a case or a right to demand parity with the State Government employees. They are employees of the Agencies. They are governed by the service conditions, the ground financial realities and capability to meet the obligations of the employees on their own. The Agencies cannot be permitted to make recommendations in favour of the employees for a pay revision and pass the burden on to the State Government as if it is their obligation all the way. 15. The current ground situation is that all these Agencies have fallen in bad times and they do not have resources of their own to meet all the obligations. Since their object was being funded through grants from the Central as well as the State Government then those grants have to be used for the purposes for which the Agencies were created and not to maintain the employees and the establishment being run by the Agencies from day-to-day. State points out that the expenses on salary and establishment is as high as 90% over the years and above all there is no resource left for development work. 16. This being the position this Court is in agreement with the stand of the State that the demand and relief of the petitioners for parity in pay and other allowances are quite misplaced. The respondents are however, restrained from making any recovery from the salary or allowances such as H.R.A. etc. if the same has been paid to the employees earlier. The decision not to pay revised salary or allowances of the Government will be prospective in nature and will not relate back. 17. This Court keeping in view the factual and legal position indicated above is of the opinion that there is no merit in these writ applications. They are accordingly dismissed. 18. There will be no order, however, as to costs.