2025 INSC 74
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(HON’BLE J.K.
MAHESHWARI, J. AND HON’BLE RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.)
BAIDYA NATH CHOUDHARY
Petitioner
VERSUS
DR. SREE SURENDRA
KUMAR SINGH
Respondent
Contempt
Petition (C) No. 1188 of 2018 In Civil Appeal No. 2703 OF 2017-Decided on 08-01-2025
Contempt
Contempt of Courts At,
1971, Section 12 – Contempt of Court – Disposed - Alleged non-compliance of the
order dated 31.08.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017 and batch - State
of Bihar filed counter-affidavit stating that his arrears of salary are not
payable as he has not worked from the date of absorption, hence, not entitled
for payment - Issue of payment of arrears of salary verifying the absence
period and actual working days and the stoppage of pension are the issues,
which require adjudication - Held that 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, and the petition
disposed of with the certain directions.
(Para
4 to 7)
ORDER
1.
The petitioner in the present Contempt Petition is 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 petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in R.L. College Madhav
Nagar. 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 21.11.2014. 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.
3.
Upon issuance of notice, the University vide order dated 09.12.2018 absorbed
the petitioner with effect from 21.04.1995 and not from the date of his
confirmation by the University on the sanctioned post. University on 26.07.2019
modified the previous order treating the petitioner absorbed with effect from
15.12.1993. Later, vide order dated 01.10.2019, by a partial modification the
date of absorption was accepted w.e.f. 12.09.1976, i.e., the date on which
petitioner was confirmed on the sanctioned post.
4.
In the present case, the State of Bihar filed counter-affidavit stating that
his arrears of salary are not payable as he has not worked from the date of
absorption, hence, not entitled for payment.
5.
Having considered the submissions, we find that undisputedly, after order of J.
Sinha Commission, the petitioner’s absorption was notified as mentioned above.
He has already attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2018. Further, in
view of the orders dated 11.07.2019 and 07.08.2019 of this Court in the present
Contempt Petition, his pension was put on hold. Thus, the issue of payment
of
arrears
of salary verifying the absence period and actual working days and the stoppage
of pension are the issues, which require adjudication.
6.
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 the present
Contempt Petition, we find that the issue regarding actual working of the
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 had 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.
7.
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
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 this Contempt
Petition. However, if there is prolonged
period of absence, the same shall be dealt
with by the competent authority in accordance with the relevant rules.
(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 under 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 permissible.
(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.
8.
In view of the foregoing, the present contempt petition stands disposed of.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
------