1. Contempt petition regarding non-payment of salary arrears and pension benefits following absorption of employees into university service subject to verification of actual working period. (Para 1 , 2 )
2025 Supreme(SC) 64
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
The court mandated a fact-finding enquiry to resolve disputes over salary and pension payments, ensuring compliance with interim orders and due process.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Court - Interim Orders - The petitioners contend non-compliance with interim orders regarding arrears of salary and pensions, resulting in alleged disobedience of the court's order. (Paras 1, 2, 6)
(B) Compliance - The court emphasized the necessity for a fact-finding enquiry regarding actual working periods and payment of dues, clarifying the distinction between salary and pension issues. (Paras 7, 8)
(C) Directions - The court directed the Registrar/Vice Chancellor to adjudicate claims for salary and pension within specified timelines, ensuring due process is followed. (Paras 8(i)-(vi))
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, appointed under Magadh University, sought compliance with orders for salary and pension payments following their absorption as per the J. Sinha Commission's recommendations. (Para 2)
Findings of Court:
The court found the need for a discrete enquiry to ascertain actual working periods and to resolve payment issues. (Paras 7, 8)
Issues: The primary issues were the verification of actual working periods and the determination of pension and salary payments. (Paras 6, 7)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a fact-finding enquiry is essential for resolving payment disputes, emphasizing that pension payments should not be withheld arbitrarily. (Paras 7, 8)
Result: The contempt petition was disposed of with directions for adjudication of claims.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners allege disobedience of court orders regarding arrears and pension; State contends fact-finding enquiry is necessary to verify actual working periods before payment. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Salary arrears require fact-finding enquiry beyond the scope of contempt proceedings, whereas pension claims should be decided independently of orders relating to salary for non-working periods. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. Claims for salary arrears based on actual service require discrete fact-finding enquiries, while pensionary benefits should be adjudicated based on notional service from the date of absorption. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. Petition disposed of with directions to the University to conduct enquiries for salary arrears and adjudicate pension claims independently, with liberty to appeal to the High Court. (Para 8 )
6. How should claims for salary arrears be handled when actual working periods are disputed?
Such claims require a discrete fact-finding enquiry where the employee, concerned college, and State representative are afforded an opportunity to be heard, resulting in a reasoned order. (Para 7 , 8 )
7. Can pension benefits be withheld based on orders preventing salary payments for periods of non-work?
No. Pension claims should be decided by counting the period of service from the date of absorption notionally, uninfluenced by orders that stopped salary payments for periods where employees did not actually work. (Para 7 , 8 )
8. What is the remedy if a party is dissatisfied with the administrative adjudication of salary or pension claims?
Parties dissatisfied with the orders passed by the Registrar or Vice Chancellor of the University are at liberty to seek recourse before the High Court. (Para 8 )
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 scena