JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Federation of University Teachers Association of Bihar through its working President is the petitioner in this writ application. 3. Petitioner is body registered under the Societies Registration Act. formed for welfare of its members, who are teachers employed in Universities of Bihar. 4. Members of this Federation are basically those teachers who were appointed as temporary Fecturers at various Colleges and Universities in the State of Bihar in between 1975 to 28.2.1982. 5. From the pleadings. it transpires that members of this Federation can be categorized in three groups: (i) teachers of fourth phase colleges having been absorbed under three absorptions statutes, considered to be in regular service with effect from the date of absorption, approved by Chancellor and according to Justice Agrawal Commissions report approved by the Supreme Court; (ii) teachers who were appointed on temporary basis, subsequently, absorbed and now have retired; (iii) teachers appointed on temporary basis, subsequently absorbed, still in service and duly promoted by Commission considering continuous service rendered by them from the date of initial appointment, as provided in the promotional statutes. 6. Petitioners are apprehensive of being demoted, terminated or on account of demotion, recovery of salary paid to them on their promotion as well as recovery from the pensions of the amount paid as salary in promotional scale. 7. Prayer of the petitioner is for quashing Clause-7 paragraph 3 the letter No. BSU-35/08/5/465(1) dated 30.4.2009 (Annexure-of Letter No. 2/67/-08/07-01 dated 24.4.2009 (Annexures-1 and 2). Annexure-1 is the general guidelines issued by the Joint Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna informing about the release of 151 crores 68 lacs 39 thousands and 475 to the Universities of Bihar for payment of salary and pension. This letter indicated how the fund released in favour of the Universities is to be utilized. Clause-7 para 3 of Annexure-1 indicates how the salary and pension is to be fixed. As per Clause-7 para 3, (Annexure-1) payment of salary/pension should be paid and fixed in the light of decision in C.W.J.C. No. 5859 of 1996. As per Clause-7 para 3, Annexure-1, the date of initial appointment of teachers has to be decided in the light of decision in C.WJ.C. No. 5859 of 1996. As per Clause-7 para 3, (Annexure-1) payment of salary/pension should be paid and fixed in the light of decision in C.W.J.C. No. 5859 of 1996. As per Clause-7 para 3, Annexure-1, the date of initial appointment of teachers has to be decided in the light of decision in C.WJ.C. No. 5859 of 1996. Basic salary has to be fixed and on that basis, and promotion given after 1.1.1996 before 19.4.2007 has to be considered in the light of Section 58(10) of Bihar State Universities Act. In the light of this letter (Annexure-1). Annexure-2 has been issued by Chancellor of the Universities directing the Vice-Chancellor of all the Universities of Bihar to take necessary action as per recommendation contained in interim report and to send compliance report within a month to the Honble Chancellor. 8. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Universities and counsel representing Chancellor of the Universities have raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ application. First objection is that the writ application is premature in view of the fact that Annexure-1 has been issued as a guideline as per recommendations contained in interim report. So far Annexure-2 is concerned, it is a direction issued from the Chancellors Secretariat for taking necessary action as per the recommendations contained in Annexure-2. In any case, before implementing the guidelines and the direction of Honble Chancellor, all concerned teachers will be given opportunity to show cause and considering their individual cases, direction will be complied with. In this view, the writ application is premature and not maintainable. Second objection has been raised on the ground that writ application filed by the Federation is not maintainable as the members of the Federations are of different categories; their individual cases have to be considered before passing any order when individual right of a person is to be infringed, separate writ applications should be fiied by each person, by such decision. Federation cannot file a writ application on behalf of all its members in the given circumstance. 9. Mr. Amber Nath Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the L.N. Mithila University has placed reliance on a decision reported in 2001(4) SCC 469 (T.N. Civil Supplies Corpn. Workers Union V/s. T.N. Civil Supplies Corpn. Ltd. and Ors.). Federation cannot file a writ application on behalf of all its members in the given circumstance. 9. Mr. Amber Nath Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the L.N. Mithila University has placed reliance on a decision reported in 2001(4) SCC 469 (T.N. Civil Supplies Corpn. Workers Union V/s. T.N. Civil Supplies Corpn. Ltd. and Ors.). "In that case, Union of the Workmen had filed writ petition when service of number of workmen were terminated and prayed for a blanket injunction in favour of the workers. The High Court has passed an order that Union was not entitled to have a blanket injunction and employees whose services were terminated would take such action as is available to them in accordance with law. Against the order passed by the Single Judge, appeal was preferred before the Division Bench and the Division Bench held that appeal preferred by the Union had to await the final outcome of the writ petitions filed individually by the workmen. The Supreme Court upheld the order passed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench held that since services of the employees has been terminated, it was for the employees to seek their remedies in a manner known to law. The Apex Court did not find any infirmity with the reasoning of the Division Bench and did not interfere with the matter." 10. This writ application is dismissed, without going into the merit of the case on the ground of maintainability and also because it is premature.