2025 INSC 58
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(HON’BLE J.K.
MAHESHWARI, J. AND HON’BLE RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.)
DINESH KUMAR SINGH
Petitioner
VERSUS
R.K. MAHAJAN
Respondent
Contempt
Petition (C) Nos. 379-380 OF 2019 IN Civil Appeal Nos. 2788-2789 OF 2017-Decided
on 08-01-2025
Service Law,
Contempt
Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971, Section 12 – Service Law - Contempt - Alleged non-compliance of the
order dated 31.08.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017 - Claims
regarding absorption were allowed by Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) One Man
Commission vide order dated 05.05.2016 (modified on 24.06.2016) - State of
Bihar filed counter affidavit stating that when university sent recommendations
to absorb the petitioners, the State informed that such recommendations are not
in accordance with the directions issued by J. Sinha Commission and requested
university to send the recommendations strictly in terms of the order passed by
J. Sinha Commission, which was not received - Therefore, no case of deliberate
or willful non-compliance can be made out - In view of the factual scenario of
the matter and the counter affidavit of the State, this is not the case of
willful non- compliance of the order 31.08.2017 - Contempt Petitions stand
dismissed - However, such dismissal will not debar the petitioners to avail any
other remedy for redressal of their grievances, if any, in accordance with law.
(Para
3 to 5)
ORDER
1.
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”.
2.
Briefly put, the petitioners were appointed on the posts of Peon in R.K. Dwarka
College under Magadh University. It is alleged that their claims regarding
absorption were allowed by Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) One Man Commission
(hereinafter referred to as ‘J. Sinha Commission’) vide order dated 05.05.2016
(modified on 24.06.2016). It is profitable to refer to the orders passed by J.
Sinha Commission. Relevant portion of order dated 05.05.2016 is reproduced
as thus –
“Out of the aforementioned eight persons, one
post is available in terms of Annexure-IVB of the report of Justice Aggarwal
Commission, one post of Sweeper is also available.
It is stated by Mr.
Arjun Krishnan that 5 vacancies have arisen in Class IV Posts by reason of
death/retirement/super- annuation of the incumbents of (illegible) posts.
It is stated that Sh.
Biphan Singh Yadav, Kapildeo Yadav, Nageshwar Prasad Rai have passed away
whereas Sh. Rajan Kumar and Sh. Rajeshwar Kumar Singh have super- annuated.
It is furthermore
stated that out of 5 posts, which have fallen vacant one post has been filled
up by way of compassionate appointment In that view of the matter, the vacant
posts may be filled up by the University from amongst the persons who are
qualified therefor their interse seniority (sic).”
The order dated
24.06.2016 is also reproduced as under: -
“It appears that in
the last but one page of the order dated 05.05.2016 after the case of Butan
Singh was dealt with, the names of the following persons were inadvertently
left out:
1. Late Umeshwar
Prasad Singh
2. Nityanand Yadav
3. Bishwa Vijay Tiwary
4. Dinesh Kumar Singh
5. Arjun Prasad
6. Ram Pyare Prasad
7. Kamla Devi
8. Ashok Kumar Singh
Let their names be
inserted just before the paragraph beginning with the words “Out of the
aforementioned 8 persons”
The names of the
aforementioned 8 persons may also be inserted in the procedural order dated
5.5.2016.
It appears that a
typographical error has crept in, in the matter of Shri Ramesh Prasad in so far
as the word “Geography” has wrongly been mentioned instead and in place of
“Zoology”.
The word “Geography”
shall be read as “Zoology” in the said order.
Let
all concerned treat this order to be a part of the order dated 5.5.2016.” (sic)
On perusal of the
above orders, it is apparent that there is no positive direction in favour of
the petitioners herein for absorption. Rather, J. Sinha Commission merely
directed the University to consider the qualified persons as per their inter-se
seniority to fill up the vacant posts.
3.
In the present case, the State of Bihar filed counter affidavit stating that
when university sent recommendations to absorb the petitioners, the State
informed that such recommendations are not in accordance with the directions
issued by J. Sinha Commission and requested university to send the
recommendations strictly in terms of the order passed by J. Sinha Commission,
which was not received. Therefore, no case of deliberate or willful
non-compliance can be made out.
4. In
view of the factual scenario of the matter and the counter affidavit of the
State, we find that this is not the case of willful non- compliance of the
order 31.08.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017 and batch titled
as “Krishna Nand Yadav & others (supra)”.
5.
Accordingly, the present Contempt Petitions stand dismissed. However, such
dismissal will not debar the petitioners to avail any other remedy for
redressal of their grievances, if any, in accordance with law.
6.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
------