Back
J. K. MAHESHWARI, RAJESH BINDAL
Jai Krishna Prasad Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Deepak Kumar – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The present petitions have been filed alleging non-compliance of the order dated 31.08.2017 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017 and batch titled as Krishna Nand Yadav and Others vs. Magadh University and Others, whereby, this Court approved the order of Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) One Man Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘J. Sinha Commission’), directing the State to comply with the order within a period of three months, subject to furnishing declaration of petitioner that he had been 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.
2. It is now the grievance of the petitioners that even after recommendation of J. Sinha Commission and orders passed in their favour, as accepted by this Court, the benefit of arrears of salary and pension have not been granted by the authorities in view of the orders passed in subsequent proceedings.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the submissions, in the facts, it is not in dispute that the petitioners in these contempt petitions were no
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 mandated a fact-finding enquiry to resolve disputes over salary and pension payments, ensuring compliance with interim orders and due process.
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 mandated a fair inquiry into salary and pension claims, emphasizing procedural fairness and adherence to prior absorption orders.
The court emphasized that issues of salary and pension require factual inquiry and cannot be resolved through contempt proceedings.
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.
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
