1. Contempt petitions regarding non-payment of salary arrears and pension following the absorption of college employees into a university. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
2025 Supreme(SC) 60
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
Gopal Sharan Singh – Petitioner
Versus
Deepak Kumar and Others – Respondents
Contempt Petition (C) No. 372 of 2019, Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017
WITH
Mahendra Kumar Singh – Petitioner
Versus
Deepak Kumar and Others – Respondents
Contempt Petition (C) No. 373 of 2019, Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017
WITH
Shyam Sharan Shah and Another – Petitioners
Versus
Deepak Kumar and Others – Respondents
Contempt Petition (C) No. 376 of 2019, Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017
Decided On : 08-01-2025
The court emphasizes the need for a fact-finding enquiry to resolve issues of salary and pension payment following absorption orders, ensuring compliance with prior court directives.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Court - Non-compliance of court orders - Petitioners allege non-payment of salary and pension despite absorption orders by the university - Court directs a fact-finding enquiry to determine actual working days and payment of dues. (Paras 1-8)
(B) Absorption - Notification of absorption by university following orders of the J. Sinha Commission - Issues of arrears and salary payments require adjudication. (Paras 5-6)
(C) Procedural Directions - Court directs individual claims to be submitted for salary and pension, with a timeline for enquiry and resolution. (Paras 7(i)-(vi))
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners allege non-payment of dues; State contends that arrears were paid for actual working days and missing records preclude wilful non-compliance. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Factual disputes regarding actual working periods and salary arrears require a fact-finding enquiry, which is inappropriate for adjudication within contempt proceedings. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. Factual disputes regarding attendance and actual service duration must be resolved through a discrete administrative enquiry rather than through contempt jurisdiction. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. Petitions disposed of with directions to the University to conduct enquiries and adjudicate claims for salary and pension. (Para 7 , 8 )
6. Can factual disputes regarding actual working days be decided within contempt proceedings?
No, the court held that issues regarding the actual working of individual petitioners and the payment of salary arrears require a fact-finding enquiry, which is not appropriate to decide within contempt petitions. (Para 6 )
7. What is the prescribed procedure for adjudicating disputed salary arrears for absorbed employees?
The employee must submit a claim with relevant documents, followed by a discrete enquiry affording opportunity to the employee, the concerned college, and the State, culminating in a reasoned order. (Para 7 )
8. How should pension claims be handled when service periods are disputed in related contempt proceedings?
Pension claims should be decided by counting the period of service from the date of absorption notionally, without being influenced by specific interim orders passed in related contempt proceedings. (Para 7 )
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 and Others vs. Magadh University and Others.
2. Briefly put the petitioners were appointed on various posts in different colleges. The claims of the petitioners regarding absorption were allowed by Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) One Man Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘J. Sinha Commission’) vide various 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 respective 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. The petitioners submit that while they have been absorbed by the university vide different orders on various dates, their arrears of salary and pension, if any, have not been paid by the contemnors, therefore, the present petitions have been filed.
4. In the present case, the State of Bihar filed counter affidavit stating that ascertainable arrears of salary of actual working days have been paid and it is also said that pursuant to the 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 the two member-enquiry committee observed that based on the attendance records for one of the petitioners he was found to have not worked for certain duration. For other petitioners, proper records were not available, hence their actual working period could not be ascertained. Therefore, no case of wilful non-compliance can be made out.
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 and vide different orders. The details are as under:
| Name | Date of notification | Absorption w.e.f. the following date |
| Mr. Gopal Sharan Singh | 03.12.2018 | 01.03.2005 |
| Mr. Mahendra Kumar Singh | 03.12.2018 | 01.03.2015 |
| Mr. Shyam Sharan Shah | 19.12.2018 | 01.08.2007 |
| Mr. Bishwa Nath Singh | 19.12.2018 | 01.03.2014 |
In view of the orders dated 11.07.2019 and 07.08.2019 of this Court in Contempt Petition (C) No. 1188 of 2018 Baidya Nath Choudhary (supra), their arrears were put on hold. Thus, the issue of payment of arrears of salary after verifying the absence period and actual working days and pension, if any, 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 Contempt Petition (C) No. 1188 of 2018 Baidya Nath Choudhary (supra), we find that the issues regarding actual working of the individual petitioner, payment of salary and arrears thereof require adjudication after a fact-finding enquiry, which we are not inclined to decide in these Contempt Petitions. It is not reported that after affording an 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 and Others vs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K.M. and Others, (2005) 9 SCC 129 and accordingly, we dispose of these petitions 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 pension, if any, from the date of absorption upto February 28, 2025 before th