Back
J. K. MAHESHWARI, RAJESH BINDAL
Prashant Bandyopadhyay – Appellant
Versus
Sudhir Tripathi – Respondent
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
The court directed proper adjudication of salary and pension claims, emphasizing no willful non-compliance found regarding salary payments.
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.
Contempt proceedings require adjudication of salary and pension issues through a discrete enquiry by university authorities, emphasizing compliance with court orders.
The court emphasizes the need for factual inquiry into salary Arrears and pension, despite prior non-compliance orders.
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.
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 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 directed the university to adjudicate issues of pay fixation and eligibility due to the petitioner's minor status at the time of appointment, emphasizing that contempt proceedings are not s....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
