Back
2026 Supreme(SC) 654
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Bihar State Ardh Sarkari Arajpati Karamchari Maha Sangh And Ors. – Respondents
Versus
State of Bihar And Ors. – Petitioners
Writ Petition (C) No. 932 of 2022
Decided On : 29-05-2026
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Priya Hingorani, Sr. Adv. Dr. Shweta Hingorani, Adv. Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, AOR Mr. Naseem Ahmed, Adv. Ms. Aditi Ladda, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Arunabh Chowdhury, Sr. Adv. Ms. Pallavi Langar, AOR Ms. Pragya Baghel, Adv. Mr. Sujeet Kumar Chaubey, Adv. Ms. Anushka Raghunath, Adv. Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv. Mr. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv. Mr. S.k. Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. B.k. Satija, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kumar Saurav, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Adv. Ms. Anjale Kumari, Adv. Ms. Chhaya, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, AOR
The state is constitutionally bound to secure the payment of lawful dues and retiral benefits to employees of defunct corporations. Statutory retiral benefits are vested rights, and interest must be awarded on delayed disbursements to compensate for systemic financial deprivation and loss of livelihood.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to livelihood and dignity - Humanitarian crisis - State responsibility - Successor states cannot absolve themselves of liability regarding pending emoluments and retiral dues of employees of defunct entities. (Paras 3, 4)
(B) Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Section 7Q - Statutory rights - Provident fund accumulations constitute vested statutory rights and cannot be defeated by financial incapacity or administrative lapses - Employer’s and employee’s contributions with statutory interest must be disbursed to beneficiaries. (Paras 27, 28)
(C) Pay Revision - Applicability - Absence of subsisting employer-employee framework or formal adoption by competent authority precludes claims for benefits under subsequent pay commissions. (Paras 22, 23)
(D) Interest - Delayed payment - Awarding interest on delayed salary arrears and provident fund dues serves as restitution for financial prejudice and chronic deprivation. (Paras 33, 34)
Facts of the case:
Employees of corporations sought disbursement of lawful dues following the bifurcation of a state. Prolonged non-payment resulted in severe financial distress and humanitarian crises. A committee was constituted to examine liabilities, verify employees, and suggest payment mechanisms. While significant resolution was achieved, disputes remained regarding pay revisions, daily-wage rates, provident fund disbursement, compensatory support for survivors, and interest on delayed amounts.
Findings of Court:
The court accepted the committee's findings on liability apportionment and the exclusion of subsequent pay commission benefits. It mandated that provident fund dues, including interest, must be cleared. It acknowledged the necessity for further adjudication on compensatory support and the specific determination of interest on withheld salary arrears.
Issues: Main issues included the apportionment of liabilities between successor states, the applicability of subsequent pay revision benefits, the validity of daily-wage claims, the mechanism for provident fund settlement, entitlement to compensation for losses during the period of deprivation, and the appropriate interest rates for delayed payments.
Ratio Decidendi: States bear an inexorable responsibility to ensure the livelihood and dignity of employees, which precludes the evasion of liabilities even in the face of institutional collapse. Statutory retiral benefits such as provident funds are protected rights, and interest on delayed payments is a necessary compensatory measure to redress the financial prejudice suffered by employees due to institutional delay.
Result: The matter is kept as part-heard, pending further adjudication on identified residual issues regarding compensation and interest.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contextual background of state bifurcation and humanitarian deprivation. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. committee-led inquiry into liability and employee verification. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. determinations on pay scales, epf, and interest on arrears. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 4. judicial acceptance of recommendations and identification of residual issues. (Para 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 5. final procedural orders, honorarium, and continued adjudication. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
ORDER
Mehta, J.
1. Heard in part.
BACKGROUND
2. The present proceedings arise out of a prolonged and distressing humanitarian as well as legal controversy concerning the continued non-payment of salaries, retiral dues and other consequential emoluments payable to thousands of employees of five State-owned Corporations, namely, Bihar State Construction Corporation Ltd.; Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.; Bihar State Electronic Development Corporation Ltd.; Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Ltd.; and Bihar State Panchayati Raj Financial Corporation Ltd.; following the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar under the provisions of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000. Upon the creation of the successor State of Jharkhand, the assets and liabilities of the concerned Corporations, were required to be apportioned between the successor States of Bihar and Jharkhand in accordance with the statutory scheme contemplated under the Act. However, the process of bifurcation and settlement of liabilities remained unresolved for nearly two and a half decades, leaving the employees/workmen and their families in a state of acute financial distress and prolonged uncertainty.
3. The material placed before this Court revealed that the prolonged non-payment of lawful dues resulted in grave humanitarian consequences affecting a large section of the workforce and their dependants. The proceedings disclosed allegations of severe deprivation, destitution and reported instances of suicides and starvation deaths amongst the affected employees and their family members owing to prolonged denial of salaries and retiral benefits. The dispute, therefore, ceased to remain a mere matter of financial adjustment between two successor States and assumed the character of a significant human rights and constitutional concern directly implicating the right to livelihood and dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
4. The issue first engaged the attention of this Court in the proceedings arising out of Kapila Hingorani v. State of Bihar, (2003) 6 SCC 1 wherein this Court, while dealing with the plight of the employees of the State Corporations between the years 2003 and 2005, emphatically observed that States could not absolve itself of responsibility in the face of a humanitarian crisis of such magnitude. During the course of the said proceedings, this Court directed the respondent States to deposit an aggregate amount of Rs. 125 crores as an interim arrangement for disbursal of dues through a Committee headed by Justice Uday Sinha (Retd.). However, despite the aforesaid intervention, the amount so made available proved insufficient and the payments effected therefrom could clear salary arrears only up to February, 1997, leaving the claims for the subsequent years substantially unresolved.
5. The present phase of litigation commenced with the institution of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 932 of 2022 by the petitioner-association seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the States concerned and the Union of India to complete the process of bifurcation and to ensure release of the outstanding salaries, retiral dues and other admissible benefits payable to the employees concerned. Although the State of Bihar had issued certain resolutions in the year 2018 contemplating adjustment and payment of employees of defunct Corpor
