Rajendra Menon, CJ. – Petitioner, an association of employees working in the Bihar Bhoodan Yajna Committee, filed the writ petition in question and sought a mandamus to direct the State Government to pay salary and allowances to the petitioner or to release grant-in-aid to facilitate payment of salary and allowances. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 13.1.2016, the learned Writ Court found that the State Government has already taken steps for releasing the grant of Rs.1,58,16,000/- and, therefore, disposed of the writ petition in the following manner: –

“Writ application now stands disposed of in view of the stand of the State that they have already taken steps for release of Rs.1,58,16,000/- for the current financial year for which budget provision has already been made. In view of the same, the State is directed to ensure that this fund is released well before 31st March before the financial year comes to close.

I.A. No.60 of 2016 stands allowed for the reasons indicated therein. The order imposing cost of Rs.5000/- upon the State authorities passed on 21.12.2015 stands recalled.”

2. It is the case of the petitioners that the learned Writ Court should have directed for payment of all the arrears of salary and other benefits and as this was not done, the learned Writ Court has committed an error.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took us through the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954 and argues that the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Committee is a creation of the Statute. The Committee facilitates in managing and distributing the lands donated under the Bhoodan Abhiyan in furtherance to the wishes of Acharya Vinoba Bhave. It is a statutory committee and State Government is obliged under the Statute to maintain the Committee and thereby to facilitate functioning of the Committee, to give salary or grant-in-aid to the Committee for payment to its employees.

4. Inter alia contending that the Chairman and members are nominated by the State Government, the Committee is managed by the State Government and, therefore, the State is, under law, obliged to pay the grant and salary, the this appeal has been filed and learned counsel seeks indulgence into the matter.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the State refuted the aforesaid contention and invited our attention to a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Badrinarayan Singh, 2003 (2) PLJR 433, and the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment, particularly in para 3 to say that the State is not liable to pay grant-in-aid or salary to the employees of the Committee. Contending that in view of this judgment, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, the prayer is made that the appeal be dismissed. That apart, learned counsel for the State invites our attention to the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954, the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 and argues that only the Chairman and 9 members of the Committee are appointed by the State Government for a period of three years. There is no liability imposed upon the State Government to pay salary to the employees, but the State Government, as a measure of good will, has been making annual grant to the Committee for last more than seven years and it is stated that for the financial year 2009-10 up to 2015-16 grants to the tune as indicated in para-6 of the counter affidavit have been made. It is stated that under Section 24 of the Act it is the Bhoodan Yagna Committee which has to make regulation and under para 13 and 17 of the Regulation, it is the Committee which has to make the annual budget and manage its own resources by taking assistance or grant from the State or loan or gift from the State Government, individuals, Central Government or any organization. Accordingly, it is the case of the State Government that they are not liable to pay any grant or salary to the employees and that in the absence of there being any statutory law on the Statute, no mandamus can be issued.

6. We h