Legally Bharat

Supreme Court of India

Dr. Yugeshwar Yadav vs Sanjay Kumar on 8 January, 2025

Author: J.K. Maheshwari

Bench: Rajesh Bindal, J. K. Maheshwari

 2025 INSC 61
                                   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                        INHERENT JURISDICTION
                              CONTEMPT PETITION (C)        OF 2025
                                          [@DIARY NO. 7955 OF 2022]
                                              IN
                              CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 1188 OF 2018
                                                    IN
                                    CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017


          DR. YUGESHWAR YADAV                                         PETITIONER
                                                 VERSUS
          SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.                                        RESPONDENT(S)


                                                ORDER

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
Signature Not Verified

been finalized, which may amount to disobedience of the order of this
Digitally signed by
NIDHI AHUJA
Date: 2025.01.10
18:01:19 IST
Reason:

Court.

1

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-

2
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

3
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 up his actual working

in college in terms of the orders of absorption

claiming salary, and also for pension from the date

4
of absorption upto February 28, 2025 before the

Registrar/Vice Chancellor of the University.

(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 period

of service, w.e.f. date of absorption notionally

uninfluenced by the orders dated 11.07.2019,

07.08.2019 and 12.02.2021 passed in Contempt

Petition (C) No. 1188 of 2018 in Baidya Nath

Choudhary (supra).

(iv) After adjudicating the issue of pension and

arrears the same be paid adjusting the amount

5
already paid as expeditiously as possible not later

than two months from the date of such order.

(v) Upon adjudication, if it is found that any excess

amount has been paid either in the head of salary

or pension, it be quantified and the

university/college/state as the case may be,

shall be at liberty to take recourse to recover the

same following the procedure as prescribed.

(vi) We make it clear that if the employees have

submitted the joint claim of arrears of salary and

pension, in that event the issue of arrears of

salary be governed by direction No. (ii) and

pension be governed by direction (iii).

(vii) In case, the parties feel dissatisfied by the orders

of the Registrar/Vice Chancellor of the University,

they shall be at liberty to take recourse as

permissible before the High Court.

6

7. In view of the foregoing, the present contempt petition stands

disposed of. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands

disposed of.

……………..…………………J.
[ J. K. MAHESHWARI ]

………………………………..J.
[ RAJESH BINDAL ]

New Delhi;

January 08, 2025.

7

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *