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
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:
State of Bihar and Others vs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K.M. and Others
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.
The court emphasized that issues of salary and pension require factual inquiry and cannot be resolved through contempt proceedings.
The court mandated a fact-finding enquiry to resolve disputes over salary and pension payments, ensuring compliance with interim orders and due process.
Contempt proceedings require adjudication of salary and pension issues through a discrete enquiry by university authorities, emphasizing compliance with court orders.
The court directed the University to adjudicate the issues of salary and pension for the petitioner based on actual working, emphasizing the need for a discrete inquiry.
The court emphasized the necessity of a fact-finding enquiry to determine the actual working status of petitioners for salary and pension claims, as they were not parties to the original appeal.
The court emphasized the necessity of a fact-finding enquiry to determine salary and pension claims for petitioners not originally part of the appeal, directing proper adjudication by university auth....
The court emphasizes the need for factual inquiry into salary Arrears and pension, despite prior non-compliance orders.
The court mandated a fair inquiry into salary and pension claims, emphasizing procedural fairness and adherence to prior absorption orders.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.