The court emphasizes the need for factual inquiry into salary Arrears and pension, despite prior non-compliance orders.

1. The petitioner in the present contempt petition has approached inter - alia contending that by virtue of the interim 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 " in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017 and batch titled as "Krishna Nand Yadav & others Vs. Magadh University & others", his arrears of salary and pension have not been finalized, which may amount to disobedience of the order of this Court.

2. Briefly put, the petitioner was appointed on the post of lecturer. 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'). 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. Vide notification dated 13.07.2018 of the Magadh University, he was absorbed.

3. In the present case, the State of Bihar filed counter affidavit stating that ascertainable arrears of salary of actual working days have been paid. It is also said that pursuant to the orders dated 11.07.2019 and 07.08.2019 passed in Contempt Petition (C) No. 1188 of 2018 Baidya Nath Choudhary (supra) two members enquiry committee found that petitioner has not worked for certain duration(s), hence, some amount is recoverable. Therefore, for demand of arrears of salary, no case of deliberate or willful non - compliance can be made out.

4. Having considered the submissions, indisputably, after order of J. Sinha Commission, the petitioner's absorption was notified on 13.07.2018. As contended, the ascertainable arrears of salary have been paid and the excess amount is recoverable. The petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation. In view of the orders dated 11.07.2019 and 07.08.2019 of this Court in Contempt Petition (C) No. 1188 of 2018 Baidya Nath Choudhary (supra), his pension was put on hold. Thus, the issue of payment of arrears of salary, verifying the absence period and actual working days after an enquiry and release of pension are the issues, which require adjudication.

5. 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 Contempt Petition (C) No. 1188 of 2018 Baidya Nath Choudhary (supra), we find that the issues regarding actual working of the petitioner, payment of salary, arrears and excess payment require 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 have received the salaries for the period in which they have not actually worked. Therefore, the Court directed 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.

6. 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:
(i) The petitioner shall submit his claim along with relevant documents setting