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.

Headnote:(A) Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017 - Contempt proceedings - Petitions filed for non-compliance of orders regarding payment of salary and pension - Petitioners, not parties to original appeal, claim arrears based on actual work - Court finds need for fact-finding enquiry before adjudication. (Paras 1, 3, 4)

(B) Directions issued for submission of claims and conducting discrete enquiry regarding payment of salary and pension - Timelines specified for decision-making and payment. (Paras 5, 6)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners allege non-compliance of previous court orders regarding salary and pension benefits after recommendations of J. Sinha Commission, despite claims of having worked during the absorption period.

Findings of Court:
The court directs that claims for salary and pension be adjudicated by the appropriate university authorities with specified timelines for decisions and payments.

Issues: The main issue addressed was whether the petitioners, not parties to the original proceedings, could claim salary and pension based on their work during the absorption period.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a fact-finding enquiry is necessary to determine the actual working of the petitioners and their entitlement to salary and pension, as they were not direct parties to the earlier ruling.

Result: Contempt petitions disposed of with directions for further adjudication.

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 not party in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017 and batch titled as Krishna Nand Yadav (supra). While the petitioners contend that during absorption period they have actually worked, the said fact has been disputed by the respondents in their counter affidavit, inter-alia, submitting that the arrears of salary of such period is not payable as they have not worked.

4. In this view of the matter and after perusal of the nature of the directions issued in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017 and batch titled as Krishna Nand Yadav (supra), no specific direction in personam to petitioners regarding payment of salary and arrears have been issued. Further, considering the counter affidavit of the State and the tenor of the orders passed in subsequent proceedings in Contempt Petition (C) No. 1188 of 2018 titled as Baidya Nath Choudhary vs. Dr. Sree Surendra Kumar Singh, we find that the issue regarding actual working of the petitioners, payment of salary and arrears thereof requires adjudication after fact-finding enquiry, which we are not inclined to hold in these Contempt Petitions. So far as stoppage of pension is concerned, we make it clear that in the orders dated 11.07.2019, 07.08.2019 and 12.02.2021, the issue regarding payment of pension was not an issue. These orders relate to the fact that the absorbed employees have received the salaries for the period in which they had not actually worked. Therefore, the Court directed for no further payment even for pension. It is not reported that affording opportunity enquiry has been completed, however, we do not deem it appropriate to keep these matters pending.

5. It is seen that in the case of the petitioners, the orders of absorption have been passed by the respective universities after the orders of J. Sinha Commission, hence, it would be appropriate to direct the authorities to adjudicate all the said issues through Registrar/Vice Chancellor in view of the judgment of State of Bihar and Others vs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K.M. and Others, (2005) 9 SCC 129 and accordingly, we dispose of these petitions with the following directions:

(ii) On receiving the claim of salary, a discrete enquiry be held affording due opportunity to the employee, college concerned and the representative of the State if required, and a reasoned order be passed regarding payment of salary and arrears, if any, within a period of three months thereafter.

(iii) The claim regarding pension of petitioner, which has been withheld, be decided counting the pe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document