Why were the arrears and pension claims not decided in the contempt petitions?
Coram: Justice J.K. Maheshwari · Justice Rajesh Bindal
Contempt of Court — Absorption pursuant to the Commission — Disputed working period — Fact-finding enquiry — Held: Where the petitioners' absorption was notified by the University on various dates pursuant to the J. Sinha Commission's order as confirmed by this Court, but the State disputes their entitlement to arrears on the ground of non-working, the questions of actual working, payment of salary and arrears, and the withheld 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 petitions disposed of.
Why were the arrears and pension claims not decided in the contempt petitions?
Because the petitioners' actual working from the dates of absorption was disputed or unascertainable, and those questions and the withheld pension require a fact-finding enquiry that cannot be undertaken in contempt jurisdiction.
To whom were the claims remitted, and on what basis?
To the Registrar/Vice-Chancellor, to adjudicate salary, arrears and the withheld pension afresh after enquiry, following State of Bihar v. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K.M.
How is the pension to be computed and what if excess was paid?
By counting service notionally from the date of absorption, uninfluenced by the earlier interim orders; any excess paid may be quantified and recovered following due procedure.
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 petitions are 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”.
Briefly put the petitioners were appointed on various posts in different colleges. The claims of the petitioners regarding absorption were allowed by Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) One Man Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘J. Sinha Commission’) vide various 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 respective 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.
The petitioners submit that while they have been absorbed by the university vide different orders on various dates, their arrears of salary and pension, if any, have not been paid by the contemnors, therefore, the present petitions have been filed. 3
In the present case, the State of Bihar filed counter affidavit stating that ascertainable arrears of salary of actual working days have been paid and it is also said that pursuant to the orders dated 11.07.2019 and 07.08.2019 passed in Contempt Petition (C) No. 1188 of 2018 titled as “Baidya Nath Choudhary Vs. Dr. Sree Surendra Kumar Singh” the two member-enquiry committee observed that based on the attendance records for one of the petitioners he was found to have not worked for certain duration. For other petitioners, proper records were not available, hence their actual working period could not be ascertained. Therefore, no case of wilful non-compliance can be made out.
Having considered the submissions, indisputably, after order of J. Sinha Commission, the absorption of the petitioners was notified by Magadh University on different dates and vide different orders. The details are as under: - Name Date of Absorption w.e.f. notification the following date Mr. Gopal Sharan Singh 03.12.2018 01.03.2005 Mr. Mahendra Kumar Singh 03.12.2018 01.03.2015 Mr. Shyam Sharan Shah 19.12.2018 01.08.2007 Mr. Bishwa Nath Singh 19.12.2018 01.03.2014 4 In view of the orders dated 11.07.2019 and 07.08.2019 of this Court in Contempt Petition (C) No. 1188 of 2018 Baidya Nath Choudhary (supra), their arrears were put on hold. Thus, the issue of payment of arrears of salary after verifying the absence period and actual working days and pension, if any, 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 issues regarding actual working of the individual petitioner, payment of salary and arrears thereof require adjudication after a fact-finding enquiry, which we are not inclined to decide in these Contempt Petitions. It is not reported that after affording an 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 5 and accordingly, we dispose of these petitions 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 pension, if any, from the date of absorption upto February 28, 2025 before the Registrar/Vice Chancellor of the University.
(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, if any, 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 6 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 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, 7 they shall be at liberty to take recourse as permissible before the High Court.
In view of the foregoing, the present contempt petitions stand disposed of. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. ……………………………………., J. [ J.K. MAHESHWARI ] ……………………………………., J. [ RAJESH BINDAL ] New Delhi; January 08, 2025.
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