2025 INSC 63
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(HON’BLE J. K.
MAHESHWARI, J. AND HON’BLE RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.)
PRASHANT BANDYOPADHYAY
Petitioner
VERSUS
SUDHIR TRIPATHI
Respondent
Contempt
Petition (C) No. 735 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 No.
1 submits that he has received his arrears of salary only from the date of
bifurcation of State of Jharkhand from State of Bihar, i.e., 15.11.2000 till
his superannuation, i.e., 31.08.2016 - However, his arrears from the date
of absorption till bifurcation are still pending, though recommended by the
University vide chart dated 13.09.2018 which was submitted to State of
Jharkhand on 14.09.2018 - In the present contempt petition, no one has been
joined as contemnor from State of Bihar, therefore, adjudication of the claim
of arrears of salary from the date of absorption till bifurcation cannot
be gone into in the present contempt petition - On perusal of the documents
produced, the claim regarding his working in the State of Bihar is not
ascertainable - 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 this petition disposed of with the certain
directions.
(Para
4 to 8)
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.
The present Contempt Petition is being entertained only on behalf of petitioner
No. 1 – Prashant Bandyopadhyay. So far as petitioner No. 2 – Hiralal Ram is
concerned, who is reported to have expired, we do not find any order that has
been passed in his favour by Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) One Man
Commission (hereinafter referred to as “J. Sinha Commission”), against
which any contempt can be made out. Therefore, we are not inclined to
entertain the claim of petitioner No. 2. The contempt petition, so far as
petitioner No. 2 is concerned, is dismissed and the application for substitution
of his legal heirs is hereby rejected.
3.
Insofar as petitioner no. 1 – Prasant Bandyopadhyay is concerned, he was
appointed as a Routine Clerk in ABM College, Jamshedpur. His claim regarding
payment of salary was allowed by Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) One Man
Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘J. Sinha Commission’) vide order dated
23.01.2016. 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 notification dated 15.09.2018 of the Kolhan University, he was absorbed
w.e.f. 22.10.1986.
4.
The petitioner No. 1 submits that he has received his arrears of salary only
from the date of bifurcation of State of Jharkhand from State of Bihar, i.e.,
15.11.2000 till his superannuation, i.e., 31.08.2016. However, his arrears
from the date of absorption till bifurcation are still pending, though
recommended by the University vide chart dated 13.09.2018 which was submitted
to State of Jharkhand on 14.09.2018.
5.
The State of Jharkhand in its counter affidavit has stated that on enquiry
pursuant to 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” two members enquiry committee found discrepancies in
attendance register and was not in a position to verify the absence period and
the actual working period, therefore, for demand of arrears of salary, no case
of deliberate or willful non-compliance can be made out.
6.
We have perused the documents and it is reported that petitioner No. 1 was
allocated to the State of Jharkhand and accordingly, the State released his
arrears of salary from the date of creation of State of Jharkhand. In the
present contempt petition, no one has been joined as contemnor from State of Bihar,
therefore, adjudication of the claim of arrears of salary from the date of
absorption till bifurcation cannot be gone into in the present contempt
petition.
7.
On perusal of the documents produced, the claim regarding his working in the
State of Bihar is not ascertainable. So far as his working in the State of
Jharkhand, salary has already been decided and paid. In case any surviving
claim is there, he is at liberty to put forth such claim along with the issue
of pension. We make it clear that in the orders dated 11.07.2019, 07.08.2019
and 12.02.2021, passed in Contempt Petition (C) No. 1188 of 2018 titled
as “Baidya Nath Choudhary (supra)” 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 of
pension. It is not reported that affording opportunity enquiry has been
completed, however, we do not deem it appropriate to keep these matters
pending.
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.
1 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 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 of petitioner No. 1 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 in 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 pension be governed 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.
9.
In view of the foregoing, the present contempt petition stands disposed of.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
------