JUDGMENT : AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. The reason for preferring the present Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 25.3.2014 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10147 of 2013 is neither being appreciated nor being understood despite a detailed hearing, which has been given to the counsel for the State over a period of two days. 2. Bhojpuri Academy, established by the State of Bihar, is 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India as it is not only under the direct but even pervasive control of the State of Bihar as has been held to be so in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Others, reported in (2002)5 SCC 111 [: 2002(4) PLJR (SC) 81]. 3. The other aspect, on which this Court has not been provided any clarity, is whether there is some kind of rule or regulation governing the service conditions of the employees of the Academy. There seems to be none, even though it has been in existence for almost four decades now. In fact, it seems from the Memorandum of Association, which was drawn up on 20th March, 1977, by the State of Bihar, the terms and conditions of service was required to be laid down by the State Government, which has not been done till date. 4. If this is the situation it shows complete lack of good governance and performance or decision making with regard to such vital issue. The employees of the Academy cannot be left in the vacuum and lurch. There has to be some kind of rule/regulation, which will govern their service conditions right from entry till superannuation. 5. Therefore, by deeming fiction, in absence of any rule having been laid down by the State or the Academy, the service conditions, which are applicable to State Government employees, will be applicable to the employees of the Academy and they will be treated to be the State Government employee till a rule is put in place. 6. If in this background, the learned Single Judge has observed about the entitlement of the private respondent for which a direction has been given to the State Government for taking appropriate steps for not only framing the rule, but also to grant benefit to the private respondent it cannot be said to be erroneous. 7. 6. If in this background, the learned Single Judge has observed about the entitlement of the private respondent for which a direction has been given to the State Government for taking appropriate steps for not only framing the rule, but also to grant benefit to the private respondent it cannot be said to be erroneous. 7. It is a classic case where the State has got dragged down due to its own non-delivery and non-decision making mode, which is evident from the passage of four decades of inaction on their part. Appeal has no merit. It is dismissed. Appeal Dismissed