What was the status of the petitioners' dues?
Coram: Justice J.K. Maheshwari · Justice Rajesh Bindal
Contempt of Court — Absorption of multiple employees — Regular salary paid — Pension withheld — Held: Where the petitioners' absorption was notified on various dates pursuant to the J. Sinha Commission's order and their regular current salary has been paid, but the other dues and pension were kept in abeyance pending verification of their actual working from the date of absorption, the questions of arrears and pension require a fact-finding enquiry that cannot be undertaken in contempt jurisdiction. Service Law — Salary and pension — Adjudication by the Registrar/Vice-Chancellor — State of Bihar v. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K.M — Held further: The authorities, through the Registrar/Vice-Chancellor, are directed to adjudicate the claims of salary, arrears and the withheld pension afresh after due enquiry, following State of Bihar v. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K.M, counting service notionally from the date of absorption and deciding pension uninfluenced by the earlier interim orders. Service Law — Recovery of excess — Remedy — Disposition — Held further: Any excess amount paid under the head of salary or pension may be quantified and recovered following due procedure, and a party dissatisfied with the Registrar/Vice-Chancellor's orders may take recourse before the High Court. Contempt petition disposed of.
What was the status of the petitioners' dues?
Their regular current salary had been paid, but the other dues and pension were kept in abeyance pending verification of their actual working from the date of absorption.
Why could the arrears and pension not be decided in contempt?
Because the petitioners' actual working from the date of absorption required a fact-finding enquiry that cannot be undertaken in contempt jurisdiction.
To whom were the claims remitted and how is pension computed?
To the Registrar/Vice-Chancellor for fresh adjudication after enquiry following State of Bihar v. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K.M, the pension counted notionally from the date of absorption and any excess recoverable.
Prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment.
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.
Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
The petitioners in the present contempt petition have Choudhary Vs. Dr. Sree Surendra Kumar Singh” in Civil Appeal No. Vs. Magadh University & others”, arrears of salary and pension
order of this Court.
Briefly put, the petitioners were appointed on various posts in different colleges under Magadh University. Their claims regarding absorption were allowed by Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) One Man Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘J. Sinha Commission’) passing orders on different dates. The said orders were confirmed by this Court vide order dated 31.08.2017 in Krishna Nand Yadav (supra), subject to furnishing declaration by the petitioner 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 he did not work anywhere else. However, the compliance of the said order is sought in true sense and spirit.
The petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 10 submit that arrears of salary which were earlier stopped by the Magadh University have been received by them. However, because of the orders dated 11.07.2019 and 07.08.2019, their pension and other benefits have not been paid. The petitioner No. 5 alleges that even after his absorption arrears of salary from May, 2008 have not been paid.
In the present case, the State of Bihar filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioners have been paid their regular current 2 salary, however, the other payments were kept in abeyance in the light of the orders dated 11.07.2019 and 07.08.2019 passed in Contempt Petition (C) No. 1188 of 2018 Baidya Nath Choudhary (supra). It is submitted that on the issue of their actual working from the date of absorption fact finding enquiry is necessary, however, it is not a case of deliberate or willful non-compliance.
Having considered the submissions, indisputably, after order of J. Sinha Commission, the absorption of the petitioners was notified by Magadh University on different dates, vide different orders. The details are as under: - Name Date of Absorption w.e.f. Date of notification the following date superannuation P1 – Dr. Shyam 13.07.2018 14.02.1983 30.11.2020 Narayan Singh P2 - Dr. Krishna 13.07.2018 14.02.1983 30.04.2015 Kumar Navin P3 - Dr. Mundrika 18.08.2018 N/A 31.07.2009 Prasad P4 - Md. Gulam 13.07.2018 09.05.1988 30.09.2020 Samdani P[^5] - Dr. Shree Niwas 18.09.2018 N/A In service Pandey P6 - Sri Harihar 13.07.2018 19.03.1986 30.11.2015 Prasad Singh P7 - Sri Vidya 18.08.2018 N/A 31.01.2018 Bhushan Prasad P8 - Sri Brij Bihari 18.09.2018 N/A 31.01.2021 Singh P9 - Sri Rajendra Pd. 13.07.2018 19.03.1986 31.01.2019 Singh 3 P10 - Brij Mohan 13.07.2018 19.03.1986 31.12.2015 Prasad
As informed by the parties, except petitioner No. 5, all other petitioners have attained the age of superannuation. It is contended that the regular salary was paid as per order dated 14.01.2020, but in view of the orders dated 11.07.2019 and 07.08.2019 passed in Contempt Petition (C) No. 1188 of 2018 in Baidya Nath Choudhary (supra), pension and other dues are put on hold. Thus, the issue of payment of arrears of salary after verifying actual working period after an enquiry and the payment of pension are the issues which require adjudication.
In view of the factual scenario of the matter, counter affidavit of the State and the tenor of the orders passed in subsequent proceedings in Contempt Petition (C) No. 1188 of 2018 Baidya Nath Choudhary (supra), we find that the issue regarding actual working of the individual petitioner, payment of salary and arrears thereof requires adjudication after fact-finding enquiry which we are not inclined to hold in this contempt petition. So far as stoppage of pension is concerned, we make it clear that in the orders dated 4 11.07.2019, 07.08.2019 and 12.02.2021, the issue regarding payment of pension was not there. These orders relate to the fact that the absorbed employees have received the salaries for the period in which they have not actually worked. Therefore, the Court directed for no further payment even for pension. It is not reported that after affording opportunity enquiry has been completed, however, we do not deem it appropriate to keep these matters pending.
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:
(i) The individual petitioner shall submit his claim along with relevant documents setting up his actual working in college in terms of the orders of absorption, claiming salary, and also for pension from the date of absorption upto February 28, 2025 before the Registrar/Vice Chancellor of the
(ii) On receiving the claim of salary, a discrete enquiry be held affording due opportunity to the employee, college concerned and the representative of the State if required, and a reasoned order be passed regarding payment of salary and arrears, if any, within a period of three months thereafter.
(iii) The claim regarding 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 12.02.2021 passed in Contempt Petition (C) No. 1188 of 2018 Baidya Nath Choudhary (supra).
(iv) After adjudicating the issue of pension and arrears the same be paid adjusting the amount already paid as expeditiously as possible not later 6 than two months from the date of such order.
(v) Upon adjudication, if it is found that any excess amount has been paid either in the head of salary or pension, it be quantified and the university/college/state as the case may be, shall be at liberty to take recourse to recover the same following the procedure as prescribed.
(vi) We make it clear that if the employees have submitted the joint claim of arrears of salary and pension in that event the issue of arrears of salary be governed by direction No. (ii) and of pension by direction (iii).
(vii) In case, the parties feel dissatisfied by the orders of the Registrar/Vice Chancellor of the University, they shall be at liberty to take recourse as permissible before the High Court. 7 8. 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. 8
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 freeHeadnote and questions prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk · Report an error · Privacy