ORDER Heard Mr. A. B. Ojha for the petitioner, Ms. Sujata Mukherjee for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Shivendra Kishore for respondent No. 6 (Chancellor, Veer Kuer Singh University through O.S.D.), and learned JC to Govt. Pleader No. 14 for respondent No. 7 (State of Bihar through the Secretary, Higher Education). None appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 who have chosen not to enter appearance in spite of valid service of notice. 2. A large number of writ petitions at the instance of the employees of different universities of Bihar have been coming up before this Court, wherein a grievance has consistently been raised that the University has been deducting the employees' contribution to provident fund from his salary, but the University has not deposited the same with the banks in time, or never. Generally speaking, the University has negotiated and set up a scheme with one or the other nationalized Bank for maintenance of provident funds accounts of every University employee. Consequently, the bank refuses to pay interest on the amount deposited belatedly, or not at all deposited, depriving the employee of interest to that extent. At the instance of the Court, the Chancellor of the University and the State of Bihar were impleaded as party respondents in the present case with a request to the Chancellor to bestow his thoughts to this wide-spread problem. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Chancellor, wherein it is stated that employees' contribution could not in part or whole be deposited with the Banks because the State Government has not provided the requisite funds in time. Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the affidavit are set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference:- "16. That from the aforesaid facts, it shall be evident that primarily the respondent-State in the Higher Education Department is mainly responsible for non-sanctioning of amount as shown in the budget and release of grant-in-aid by them from time to time is not sufficient to meet the expenses of the Universities. 17. That at this stage it would be relevant to state here that Section 46 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 provides that the State Government shall contribute annually to tile University fund, a regularly grant out of the consolidated fund of the State which shall include all expenses of regular nature." 3. 17. That at this stage it would be relevant to state here that Section 46 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 provides that the State Government shall contribute annually to tile University fund, a regularly grant out of the consolidated fund of the State which shall include all expenses of regular nature." 3. Law is well settled that under the Acts of the Legislature governing the Universities in Bihar, the State Government is bound to meet the entire deficit. A problem for the State Government is compounded in a case of this nature where the employee's contribution has been deducted from his salary and not deposited with the Bank. This Court does not intend to enlarge the action suggested on behalf of the petitioner and wishes to confine itself to the extent it is necessary to grant relief to the employee. It is suggested on behalf of the petitioner that such action may lead to criminal action also. In that view of the matter, this Court is in no doubt that the State Government is bound to make good the loss of interest to the employees in so far his provident fund is concerned, and the employees cannot suffer. The employee shall be entitled to interest at the statutory/contracted rate from the date(s) the contributions had to be deposited in the accounts till the date(s) of payment. Respondent No.7 is hereby directed to ensure release of the requisite funds for payment so that the shortfall in payment of interest is made good by the State Government. We request the Chancellor of the Universities of Bihar to use his good offices to ensure this object so that this cause does not lead to clearly avoidable litigations in this Court. 4. In so far as the claims of the present petitioner are concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a major portion of his dues have been paid, and a small portion remains unpaid. This writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to file an exhaustive representation raising his surviving grievances before the Registrar of the University, who shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, shall dispose of the same by a reasoned order, and ensure payment of the lawful dues including deficit interest on the deposits of provident fund, promptly. He shall take into account the judgment of this Court reported in 2006(4) PLJR 369 (Prof. S. B. Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) while disposing of the representation. Let it be stated for the sake of completion of record that the said judgment has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 13.9.2007, passed in LPA No. 988 of 2006 (Jai Prakash University Vs. Kedar Nath Prasad Sinha). It is further made clear that the matter cannot be delayed, or the petitioner cannot suffer, because of non-availability of the service book. This Court will be pleased if the entire process is completed within a period of three months from the date of submission of the representation. 5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 6. Let copies of this order be handed over to Mr. Shivendra Kishore as well as learned Govt. Pleader No. 14.