Section 57(A)(6) Bihar State Universities Act | State Cannot Withhold Salaries of Regularized Teachers on Artificial Grounds of Grant Categories: Patna High Court

“No person shall be asked to perform duties without being paid their due salary... Such action is an anathema to the ethos of the Constitution”— In a seminal ruling High Court of Judicature at Patna, comprising Justice Ajit Kumar, allowed a batch of civil writ petitions directing the State of Bihar to release funds for the payment of arrears of salary and pensionary benefits to teachers of Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University.

The Genesis of the Dispute

The High Court was seized of a batch of analogous writ petitions filed by teachers and retired personnel from both Affiliated and Constituent Colleges under the Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University. The petitioners, including Dr. Surendra Prasad Dwivedi and others, approached the Court aggrieved by the arbitrary stoppage of their salaries—in some cases since 2011 and in others since 2017—and the subsequent refusal of the State Government to release grants for their retiral benefits.

The factual matrix reveals a long history of service where the petitioners were appointed in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Their services were subsequently confirmed and regularized by the University Syndicate following the recommendations of duly constituted Selection Committees. However, the Education Department of the State of Bihar, vide a memo dated September 23, 2018, rejected the University's proposal for the confirmation of services of 67 teachers. The State withheld the deficit grants necessary for salary disbursement, contending that the appointments were irregular as they lacked the recommendation of the Bihar College Service Commission or that the regularization under Section 57(A)(6) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 (as amended in 2015) did not apply to colleges receiving deficit grants.

Arguments and the State’s Resistance

The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Abhinav Srivastava and others, argued that their services were regularized strictly in accordance with the 2015 Amendment to the Act, which introduced Section 57(A)(6). This provision mandated the University to scrutinize and regularize teachers appointed prior to 2007 without the Commission's recommendation. They contended that once the statutory body of the University (the Syndicate) had approved their services, the State could not sit in appeal over the decision or withhold funds.

“The State Government and its officials have failed to perform their duties as required and have passed orders without contesting the writ order passed by this Court in appeal. The action is contemptuous.”

Per contra, the State argued that Section 57(A)(6) was intended only for affiliated colleges receiving performance-based grants, not for those receiving deficit grants-in-aid. Regarding the constituent colleges, the State relied on the judgment in Shiv Narain Yadav v. State of Bihar, arguing that temporary appointments could not be regularized. The University, finding itself in a precarious position, supported the petitioners' regularization but pleaded helplessness due to the non-release of funds by the State Government.

The Affiliated Colleges

Justice Ajit Kumar, while adjudicating the matters related to Affiliated Colleges, placed heavy reliance on the coordinate bench judgment in Balram Pandey v. The State of Bihar. The Court dismantled the State's artificial distinction between "deficit grant" and "performance grant" colleges for the applicability of Section 57(A)(6). The Court observed that the 2015 Amendment made no such distinction. The legislative intent was to scrutinize and regularize working teachers appointed prior to 2007 to abolish the "Vitta Rahit Shiksha Niti" (Finance-Free Education Policy).

The Court held that the State authorities had adopted a stubborn approach by rejecting the University's recommendations on grounds not found in the statute. The Bench emphasized that withholding salaries of teachers who have discharged their duties for decades violates Article 21 (Right to Livelihood) and Article 23 (Prohibition of Forced Labour) of the Constitution. The Court noted that the State had never directed the removal of these teachers during their service tenure and could not now arbitrarily deny them remuneration.

“Even if the appointment is found to be irregular, still the payment of salary is to be paid for the duties discharged.”

Turning to the teachers of Constituent Colleges, the Court rejected the State's reliance on the Shiv Narain Yadav judgment. Instead, the Bench applied the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in Braj Kishore Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, which established that post-facto approval of the State Government is not required if the appointment was made against a sanctioned post and the candidate possessed the requisite eligibility.

The Court observed that the petitioners in the constituent colleges had been absorbed and regularized by the University Syndicate years ago. Citing the principle that uninterrupted service for a long period entitles an employee to regularization, the Court held that the State's refusal to release funds was legally unsustainable. The Court further noted that similar rejection orders by the State had already been quashed in connected matters (e.g., Manidhar Mishra v. State of Bihar), and those decisions had attained finality after the dismissal of the State's Letters Patent Appeals.

In a decisive verdict, the High Court allowed all the writ petitions. The impugned order of the State Government dated September 23, 2018, rejecting the confirmation of services, was quashed.

The Court directed the State of Bihar to conduct the necessary exercise to release funds to the Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University. The University was directed to ensure the payment of current salaries, arrears of salary, and pensionary benefits (for retired petitioners) in terms of the UGC pay scale. The Court set a strict timeline, mandating that this exercise be completed positively within two months.

Date of Decision: 19-12-2025