LexStreakRead free →
Supreme Court of India· 10 January 2025

ANRAJ DEVI v. DEEPAK KUMAR & ANR

2025 INSC 64 · CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017
Coram: Justice J. K. Maheshwari · Justice Rajesh Bindal
Full text of the Supreme Court of India's judgmentChecked against the originalFree to read
🔖 Save this judgment📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

LexStreak turns the Supreme Court's output into a five-minute daily read for advocates — plain-language headnotes, the questions each judgment settles, and the full text when you need it.

🔖Save judgments into folders you actually use
📚A daily feed curated to your practice areas
🔥A reading streak, and your place on the Bar leaderboard
Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Full judgment
1.

The petitioner in the present contempt petition is aggrieved by the alleged non-compliance of the order dated 31.08.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017 and batch titled as “Krishna Nand Yadav & others Vs. Magadh University & others”.

2.

Briefly put, the deceased husband of the petitioner was appointed as Store Keeper in K.S.M College, Aurangabad. The claim of the petitioner’s husband regarding absorption was allowed by Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) One Man Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘J. Sinha Commission’) vide order dated 22.11.2015. The said order was confirmed by this Court 2 vide order dated 31.08.2017 in Krishna Nand Yadav (supra), subject to furnishing declaration by the petitioner’s husband regarding continuously working and attending the college regularly since the date of appointment till date, or in case of retirement till the date of retirement and that her deceased husband did not work anywhere else. Vide notification dated 18.09.2018 of Magadh University, the petitioner’s husband was absorbed w.e.f. 10.12.1985.

3.

It is submitted by the petitioner that after death of her husband, her family pension and post retiral benefits have not been settled, therefore, appropriate direction may be issued for such payments.

4.

As per above discussions, in our view, it would be appropriate to direct the authorities to adjudicate all the said issues through Registrar/Vice Chancellor in view of the judgment of State of Bihar & others vs Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K.M & others (2005) 9 SCC 129 and accordingly, we dispose of this petition with the following directions: 3 (i) The petitioner may submit representation along with relevant documents setting up claim of arrears, if any, of family pension and post retiral benefits from the date of absorption upto February 28, 2025 before the Registrar/Vice Chancellor of the University.

(ii) On receiving the claim, a discrete enquiry be held affording due opportunity to the legal representatives of the employee, college concerned and the representative of the State if required, and a reasoned order be passed regarding payment of family pension and other retiral benefits, if any, within a period of three months thereafter. (iii) The claim regarding family pension of petitioner which has been withheld be decided counting the period of service, w.e.f. date of absorption notionally uninfluenced by the orders dated 11.07.2019, 07.08.2019 and 4 12.02.2021 passed in Contempt Petition (C) No. 1188 of 2018 in “Baidya Nath Choudhary Vs. Dr. Sree Surendra Kumar Singh”.

(iv) After adjudicating the issue of family pension and arrears, the same be paid adjusting the amount already paid as expeditiously as possible but not later than two months from the date of such order.

(v) In case the petitioner feels dissatisfied by the order of the Registrar/Vice Chancellor of the University, she shall be at liberty to take recourse as permissible before the High Court. 5

5.

In view of the foregoing, the present contempt petition stands disposed of. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. ……...........………............J. [ J. K. MAHESHWARI ] ……............………...........J. [ RAJESH BINDAL ] New Delhi; January 08, 2025.

What the Court decided this week

Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC when limitation is a mixed question?

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14807 OF 2024 · Supreme Court of India

Must stray dogs removed from schools and hospitals be released back to the same location?

2025 INSC 1357 · Supreme Court of India

Are the Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines 2020 binding on a State Government issuing an aggregator licence?

2023 INSC 102 · Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court decides something every day. Read one a day.

A free account gets you the day's judgments in your practice areas, a reading streak, and folders to keep what matters.

Start reading free
Source: Supreme Court of India. Reproduced for open access to public legal records, as issued — we add no masking of our own.
Headnote and questions prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk · Report an error · Privacy