The court directed proper adjudication of salary and pension claims, emphasizing no willful non-compliance found regarding salary payments.

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