State Cannot Discriminate Between Colleges Receiving Deficit Grants and Grants Against Performance For Releasing Teachers' Salary

The petitioners, comprising a registered association of affiliated colleges and individual teaching staff, sought the release of current and arrear salary funds and pensionary benefits.

They argued that their services were approved by competent authorities on sanctioned vacant posts under the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976.

The petitioners contended that the State's distinction between colleges receiving "deficit grants" and those receiving "grants against performance" was arbitrary, as previously held by the High Court in LPA No. 683/2023.

During the proceedings, the respondents noted that a "9 Men Committee" headed by the Chief Secretary was already constituted via Memo No. 2829 dated 30.09.2025 to address such grievances, and the petitioners had already filed a representation before said committee.

1. Whether the teaching employees of affiliated degree colleges are entitled to parity in salary and pensionary benefits regardless of the nature of the grant (deficit vs. performance-based) provided to the institution.

2. Whether the court should issue a Mandamus for the immediate release of funds while a specialized committee is already seized of the petitioners' representations.

Section 57(A) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, as amended by the Bihar State Universities (Amendment) Act, 2015.

The precedent set in LPA No. 683/2023 (upheld by the Supreme Court in SLA 23633/2025), which established that any distinction between colleges getting deficit grants and colleges getting grants against performance for the purpose of scrutinizing service or releasing grants is "unwarranted," "uncalled for," and "iniquitous".

The court observed that the legal principle regarding parity in grants for affiliated colleges was already settled by the Division Bench in LPA No. 683/2023, where it was held that all teachers appointed prior to 19.04.2007 are covered by the 2015 Amending Act.

The court noted that the State had already established a specialized "9 Men Committee" to evaluate these claims on a factual basis and determined that the most appropriate course was to leverage the existing administrative remedy instead of adjudicating the merits of each individual petitioner in the writ jurisdiction.

The court linked the established legal doctrine of non-discrimination (from the LPA) to the current facts by directing the committee to apply those precedents when concluding the petitioners' pending representation.

The committee is ordered to bring the matter to a logical conclusion within twelve weeks of receipt of the order; if the grievance is found valid, necessary consequential orders for relief must be passed within the same timeframe.