Once salary funds are allocated, the University must promptly disburse admissible current and arrears salary.

The petitioners, teaching and non-teaching employees of Amilal Babua Sanskrit Upshastri College, Khara Budhama, Madhepura, approached the Patna High Court seeking payment of their current and arrear salaries, asserting that they had continuously worked against their respective posts.

Their appointments had allegedly been approved under Memo No. 91/23 dated 19 January 2023, but they had not received their current salary or salary arrears.

Pursuant to an earlier direction, the Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University filed a counter-affidavit; however, the authorities did not controvert the material averments in paragraphs 32 and 33 of the writ petition.

The petitioners relied on a communication of the Education Department dated 3 June 2025, which disclosed allocation of funds to universities and included a list of employees entitled to salary payments; the petitioners’ names were stated to appear in that list.

Whether the petitioners, whose appointments were stated to have been approved and whose names appeared in the list of employees entitled to payment from allocated grants, were entitled to disbursement of their admissible current and arrear salaries.

Whether the University could delay payment despite the State Government having allocated the necessary funds for salary disbursement.

The Court applied the public-law principle that an employee who has continuously worked against an approved post is entitled to receive admissible salary and arrears, subject to verification of the amount payable.

It further applied the principle that once the competent government authority has allocated the necessary funds, the concerned university or disbursing authority must take timely action to release the admissible salary; unexplained delay in such disbursement constitutes undue delay and deprivation.

The Court found that the Education Department’s letter dated 3 June 2025 evidenced allocation of funds to the University and identified employees, including the petitioners, who were entitled to salary payments.

The University’s counter-affidavit did not controvert the relevant factual assertions concerning the petitioners’ entitlement, and the petitioners’ names were stated to appear in the appended list.

Applying the principle that allocated funds must be disbursed without unjustified delay, the Court held that continued withholding of the petitioners’ admissible salary and arrears lacked sufficient justification.

It cautioned that delay could attract stern action and appropriate costs recoverable from the officials responsible.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.