SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
Baidya Nath Choudhary – Petitioner
Versus
Dr. Sree Surendra Kumar Singh – Respondent
Contempt Petition (C) No. 1188 of 2018 In Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017
Decided On : 08-01-2025
ORDER
1. The petitioner in the present Contempt Petition is 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. Briefly put, the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in R.L. College Madhav Nagar. The claim of the petitioner regarding absorption was allowed by Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) One Man Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘J. Sinha Commission’) vide order dated 21.11.2014. The said order was 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.
3. Upon issuance of notice, the University vide order dated 09.12.2018 absorbed the petitioner with effect from 21.04.1995 and not from the date of his confirmation by the University on the sanctioned post. University on 26.07.2019 modified the previous order treating the petitioner absorbed with effect from 15.12.1993. Later, vide order dated 01.10.2019, by a partial modification the date of absorption was accepted w.e.f. 12.09.1976, i.e., the date on which petitioner was confirmed on the sanctioned post.
4. In the present case, the State of Bihar filed counter-affidavit stating that his arrears of salary are not payable as he has not worked from the date of absorption, hence, not entitled for payment.
5. Having considered the submissions, we find that undisputedly, after order of J. Sinha Commission, the petitioner’s absorption was notified as mentioned above. He has already attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2018. Further, in view of the orders dated 11.07.2019 and 07.08.2019 of this Court in the present Contempt Petition, his pension was put on hold. Thus, the issue of payment of arrears of salary verifying the absence period and actual working days and the stoppage of pension are the issues, which require adjudication.
6. In view of the factual scenario of the matter, counter affidavit of the State and the tenor of the orders passed in subsequent proceedings in the present Contempt Petition, we find that the issue regarding actual working of the petitioner, payment of salary and arrears thereof requires adjudication after fact-finding enquiry which we are not inclined to hold in this Contempt Petition. 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 there. These orders relate to the fact that the absorbed employees had received the salaries for the period in which they have not actually worked. Therefore, the Court directed for no further payment even for pension. It is not reported that after affording opportunity enquiry has been completed, however, we do not deem it appropriate to keep these matters pending.
7. As per above discussions, in our view, 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 & others vs Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K.M & others (2005) 9 SCC 129 and accordingly, we dispose of this petition 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 thereaft
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 emphasized that issues of salary and pension require factual inquiry and cannot be resolved through contempt proceedings.
Contempt proceedings require adjudication of salary and pension issues through a discrete enquiry by university authorities, emphasizing compliance with court orders.
The court mandated a fair inquiry into salary and pension claims, emphasizing procedural fairness and adherence to prior absorption 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 emphasizes the need for factual inquiry into salary Arrears and pension, despite prior non-compliance orders.
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 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....
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.