SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. Maheshwari, Rajesh Bindal, JJ.
Dr. Shyam Narayan Singh And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Sanjay Kumar And Ors. – Respondents
Contempt Petition (C) No. 449 of 2021 In Contempt Petition (C) No. 1188 of 2018 In Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017
Decided On : 08-01-2025
ORDER :
1. The petitioners in the present contempt petition have approached this Court inter-alia contending that by virtue of the interim 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” in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017 and batch titled as “Krishna Nand Yadav & others Vs. Magadh University & others”, arrears of salary and pension have not been finalized, which may amount to disobedience of the order of this Court.
2. Briefly put, the petitioners were appointed on various posts in different colleges under Magadh University. Their claims regarding absorption were allowed by Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) One Man Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘J. Sinha Commission’) passing 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 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. However, the compliance of the said order is sought in true sense and spirit.
3. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 10 submit that arrears of salary which were earlier stopped by the Magadh University have been received by them. However, because of the orders dated 11.07.2019 and 07.08.2019, their pension and other benefits have not been paid. The petitioner No. 5 alleges that even after his absorption arrears of salary from May, 2008 have not been paid.
4. In the present case, the State of Bihar filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioners have been paid their regular current salary, however, the other payments were kept in abeyance in the light of the orders dated 11.07.2019 and 07.08.2019 passed in Contempt Petition (C) No. 1188 of 2018 Baidya Nath Choudhary (supra). It is submitted that on the issue of their actual working from the date of absorption fact finding enquiry is necessary, however, it is not a case of deliberate or willful non-compliance.
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, vide different orders. The details are as under: -
| Name | Date of notification | Absorption w.e.f. the following date | Date of superannuation |
| P1 – Dr. Shyam Narayan Singh | 13.07.2018 | 14.02.1983 | 30.11.2020 |
| P2 - Dr. Krishna Kumar Navin | 13.07.2018 | 14.02.1983 | 30.04.2015 |
| P3 - Dr. Mundrika Prasad | 18.08.2018 | N/A | 31.07.2009 |
| P4 - Md. Gulam Samdani | 13.07.2018 | 09.05.1988 | 30.09.2020 |
| P5 - Dr. Shree Niwas Pandey | 18.09.2018 | N/A | In service |
| P6 - Sri Harihar Prasad Singh | 13.07.2018 | 19.03.1986 | 30.11.2015 |
| P7 - Sri Vidya Bhushan Prasad | 18.08.2018 | N/A | 31.01.2018 |
| P8 - Sri Brij Bihari Singh | 18.09.2018 | N/A | 31.01.2021 |
| P9 - Sri Rajendra Pd. Singh | 13.07.2018 | 19.03.1986 | 31.01.2019 |
| P10 - Brij Mohan Prasad | 13.07.2018 | 19.03.1986 | 31.12.2015 |
6. As informed by the parties, except petitioner No. 5, all other petitioners have attained the age of superannuation. It is contended that the regular salary was paid as per order dated 14.01.2020, but in view of the orders dated 11.07.2019 and 07.08.2019 passed in Contempt Petition (C) No. 1188 of 2018 in Baidya Nath Choudhary (supra), pension and other dues are put on hold. Thus, the issue of payment of arrears of salary after verifying actual working period after an enquiry and the payment of pension are the issues which require adjudication.
7. In view of the factual scenari
State of Bihar & others vs Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K.M & others (2005) 9 SCC 129 [Para 8]
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 emphasizes the need for factual inquiry into salary Arrears and pension, despite prior non-compliance orders.
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 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 the issues of salary and pension for the petitioner based on actual working, emphasizing the need for a discrete inquiry.
The court mandated a fair inquiry into salary and pension claims, emphasizing procedural fairness and adherence to prior absorption orders.
The court directed proper adjudication of salary and pension claims, emphasizing no willful non-compliance found regarding salary payments.
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.