1. Contempt petition regarding non-compliance of orders for absorption and payment of salary arrears for non-teaching staff subject to proof of continuous service. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1521
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
Santosh Kumar Dubey And Others – Appellant
Versus
Sri Sudhir Tripathi And Others – Respondent
Contempt Petition (C) No. 2199 of 2018 in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017
Decided on : 26-05-2025
The Court held that factual disputes regarding continuous service and salary arrears cannot be resolved within a contempt petition. Such issues require a detailed fact-finding enquiry and adjudication by the competent authority (Registrar/Vice Chancellor) based on evidence and reasoned orders.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure - Contempt of Court - The petitioners sought enforcement of prior order regarding absorption and salary claims following non-compliance - The Supreme Court held that while the claims of some petitioners were unfounded, others required a detailed enquiry into their employment status. (Paras 1-10)
(B) Jurisdiction and Scope - The court clarified the limitations of contempt petitions and the necessity for factual adjudication by university authorities. (Paras 8-10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought compliance with a previous court order regarding their absorption and arrears of salary after being appointed to non-teaching posts, citing failure by the university to meet these requirements.
Findings of Court:
The court found insufficient evidence to support the claims of continuous employment and directed the university to conduct further inquiries regarding salary and pension claims.
Issues: The maintainability of the contempt petition by petitioner no. 25, and the sufficiency of evidence regarding the working status of the other petitioners were key issues addressed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the contempt petition was not justified for petitioner no. 25, and for the other petitioners, their claims required a fact-finding process rather than resolution within the contempt jurisdiction.
Result: Contempt petition for petitioner no. 25 dismissed; for other petitioners, direction given for further investigation into claims.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners seek absorption from appointment date and arrears; State contends lack of locus standi for one petitioner and failure to prove continuous service for others. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. Contempt proceedings are not the appropriate forum for detailed fact-finding enquiries regarding actual working, salary payments, and arrears. (Para 7 , 8 )
4. Willful non-compliance cannot be established where factual disputes regarding eligibility conditions require detailed adjudication beyond the scope of contempt jurisdiction. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. Contempt petition dismissed for one petitioner; others directed to seek adjudication of salary and pension claims through university authorities. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 )
6. When does a petitioner lack locus standi in a contempt petition regarding absorption?
A petitioner lacks locus standi if their original claim for absorption was rejected by the competent authority or commission, as there is no order to comply with. (Para 7 )
7. Can a court conduct a detailed fact-finding enquiry into service records within a contempt petition?
No, issues requiring detailed adjudication of facts, such as actual working days and salary arrears, are not suitable for decision within contempt proceedings and should be referred to the relevant authorities. (Para 8 )
8. What constitutes willful non-compliance in the context of conditional court orders?
Willful non-compliance is not established if the state can demonstrate that the petitioners failed to satisfy the conditions stipulated in the court's order, such as providing evidence of continuous service. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 )
ORDER :
1. The petitioners in the present contempt petition are 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 petitioners herein were appointed on class III and class IV non-teaching posts in S.S.J.S. Namdhari College, Garwha, Nilamber Pitamber University. By orders dated 04.12.2015, claims of the petitioners nos. 1 to 24 and 26 to 29 regarding absorption and payment of arrears of salary were allowed by Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) 'One Man Commission' (hereinafter referred to as 'J. Sinha Commission'). 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 respective petitioners with regard to their continuous 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 they did not work anywhere else.
3. The petitioners submit that while they have been absorbed by the university vide notification dated 26.07.2018 with effect from 01.12.2008, they should have been absorbed from the date of their respective appointments and arrears of salary ought to be paid by the contemnors, therefore, the present petition has been filed.
4. The State of Jharkhand in its counter affidavit firstly said that petitioner no. 25 (Janeshwar Dubey) has no locus standi to file this contempt petition as his claim for absorption and arrears was rejected by J. Sinha Commission. Secondly, this contempt is not maintainable in respect of remaining petitioners as well, because they do not satisfy the condition stipulated in para 23 of the order dated 31.08.2017 in Krishna Nand Yadav (supra). It was submitted that while the petitioners in their declaration affidavits claimed to have been working continuously from the date of their initial appointments, but the university vide letter dated 02.02.2018 informed that no record with respect to their continuous working is found by Registrar. The University did not issue continuity certificates. Nonetheless, they were absorbed by the university with effect from the year 2008.
5. The learned counsel for the State submitted that when this was brought to the notice of this Court, direction was issued vide order dated 24.09.2018 in Contempt Petition (C) No. 832 of 2018 and connected matters, vide which the State was directed to decide this issue. In compliance of the said direction, the State conducted a detailed enquiry wherein vide order dated 07.12.2018 it was found that none of the 28 petitioners were either discharging their duties regularly or receiving regular salary. State did not enquire with respect to petitioner no. 25 pleading the rejection of his claim by J. Sinha Commission.
6. The learned counsel for the State further submitted that apart from this, another enquiry was done in compliance of 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 and connected matters" wherein on scrutiny of the attendance register and other records, no evidence of continuous working could be found. In some cases, the records were highly doubtful and suspicious due to irregular markings. Hence, it is submitted that no case of willful non-compliance can be made out.
7. We have heard the counsel and perused the documents on record. We will first deal with the issue of maintainability of this contempt petition with respect to petitioner no. 25. Indisputably, the claim of petitioner no. 25 was rejected by J. Sinha Commission. The relevant part is reproduced as below: -
"It is, however, stated thar Shri Janeshwar Dubey has sought for his appointment on compassionate grounds. If that be so, he need not be absorbed in the University services, as no such order can be passed by this Commission, having r
