2025 INSC 66
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(HON’BLE J.K.
MAHESHWARI, J. AND HON’BLE RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.)
Shyam Narayan Singh
Petitioner
VERSUS
Sanjay Kumar
Respondent
Contempt
Petition (C) No. 449 OF 2021 In Contempt Petition (C) No. 1188 OF 2018 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 of court - Alleged
non-compliance of the interim 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” in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017 and
batch - State of Bihar filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioners
have been paid their regular current 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 – Held that the issue regarding actual working of the
individual petitioner, payment of salary and arrears thereof requires
adjudication after fact-finding enquiry - 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 petition
disposed of with the certain directions.
(Para
3 to 8)
ORDER
1.
The petitioners in the present contempt petition have approached this Court
inter-alia contending that by virtue of the interim 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” in Civil
Appeal No. 2703 of 2017 and batch titled as “Krishna Nand Yadav &
others Vs. Magadh University & others”, arrears of salary and pension
have not been finalized, which may amount to disobedience of the order of
this Court.
2.
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.
3.
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.
4. In
the present case, the State of Bihar filed counter affidavit stating that the
petitioners have been paid their regular current 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.
5.
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 notification |
Absorption
w.e.f. the following date |
Date
of superannuation |
|
P1
– Dr. Shyam Narayan Singh |
13.07.2018
|
14.02.1983
|
30.11.2020 |
|
P2
– Dr. Krishna Kumar Navin |
13.07.2018
|
14.02.1983
|
30.04.2015 |
|
P3
– Dr. Mundrika Prasad |
18.08.2018
|
N/A
|
31.07.2009 |
|
P4
– Md. Gulam Samdani |
13.07.2018
|
09.05.1988
|
30.09.2020 |
|
P5
– Dr. Shree Niwas Pandey |
18.09.2018
|
N/A
|
In
service |
|
P6
– Sri Harihar Prasad Singh |
13.07.2018
|
19.03.1986
|
30.11.2015 |
|
P7
– Sri Vidya Bhushan Prasad |
18.08.2018
|
N/A
|
31.01.2018 |
|
P8
– Sri Brij Bihari Singh |
18.09.2018
|
N/A
|
31.01.2021 |
|
P9
– Sri Rajendra Pd. Singh |
13.07.2018
|
19.03.1986
|
31.01.2019 |
|
P10
– Brij Mohan Prasad |
13.07.2018 |
19.03.1986
|
31.12.2015 |
6.
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.
7. 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 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.
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 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
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 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 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.
8.
In view of the foregoing, the present contempt petition stands disposed of.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
------