2025 INSC 62
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(HON’BLE J. K.
MAHESHWARI, J. AND HON’BLLE RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.)
MUNSHI LAL MAHTO
Petitioner
VERSUS
SUDHIR TRIPATHY
Respondent
Contempt
Petition (C) No. 115 OF 2019 In Civil Appeal No. 2703 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 - Petitioner
submits that after the absorption order of the University he has not received
his arrears of salary - Order of rejection of pay fixation is not on record -
It is further noted that after the absorption notification issued by the
University; nothing has been brought for de-notifying petitioner no. 4’s
absorption - Issues regarding date of birth, pay fixation, payment of salary
and arrears require adjudication, which not inclined to hold in this Contempt
Petition - 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 of this petition disposed of with
the certain directions.
(Para
6 to 8)
ORDER
1.
The petitioners in the present contempt petition 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.
During hearing, it has been informed that except petitioner No. 4, rest of the
petitioners are receiving their legible claims since their respective date of
absorption, hence they do not wish to press this contempt petition.
Accordingly, the contempt petition in respect of petitioner nos. 1 to 3
and 5 stands dismissed.
3.
So far as petitioner No. 4 is concerned, briefly put, he was appointed on the
post of Typist in P.P.K. College, Bundu (Ranchi) on 09.09.1985. The claim of
the petitioner regarding absorption was allowed by Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha
(Retd.) One Man Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘J. Sinha Commission’)
vide order dated 29.10.2015, corrected by order dated 04.12.2015. The said
order was 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. Vide a notification dated
06.08.2018 of the Ranchi University, he was absorbed w.e.f. 01.07.2015.
4.
The petitioner submits that after the absorption order of the University he has
not received his arrears of salary. The contemnor – Chief Secretary, State of
Jharkhand in his counter affidavit has stated that after receipt of the
notification dated 06.08.2018 from the University and on scrutiny of his
certificates, it was found that he was minor on the date of his appointment,
i.e., 09.09.1985, as well
as
on cut-off date. Therefore, his pay fixation was rejected.
5.
The State of Jharkhand in its reply to the written submissions of the
petitioner No. 4 has stated that the date of birth of the petitioner No. 4 is
05.08.1968 and this crucial fact was concealed by him. Since, he was a minor on
the date of his appointment as well as on the cutoff date he was ineligible for
such appointment and accordingly, his pay was not fixed. Further, since his
appointment is void ab-initio, a detailed enquiry of the original records in
regard to continuity of his service has not been done in furtherance of order
dated 07.08.2019 of this Court passed in Contempt Petition (C) No. 1188 of 2018
titled as “Baidya Nath Choudhary Vs. Dr. Sree Surendra Kumar Singh.”
Hence, there is no case of willful non- compliance.
6.
We have perused the documents placed and noted that the order of rejection of
pay fixation is not on record. It is further noted that after the absorption
notification issued by the University; nothing has been brought for
de-notifying petitioner no. 4’s absorption.
7.
Having considered the submissions, the factual scenario of the matter, counter
affidavit of the contemnors 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 date of birth, pay
fixation, payment of salary and arrears require adjudication, which we are not
inclined to hold in this Contempt Petition.
8.
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 petitioner No.
4 shall submit his claim regarding date of birth, pay fixation and arrears of
salary along with relevant documents before the Registrar/Vice Chancellor of the
University by February 28, 2025. On receiving such claim, it be adjudicated
affording due opportunity to the employee, college concerned,
representative of the State and a reasoned order be passed within a period of
three months.
(ii) 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.
9.
In view of the foregoing, the present contempt petition stands disposed of.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
------