Supreme Court of India
Jai Krishna Prasad Yadav vs Deepak Kumar on 8 January, 2025
Author: J.K. Maheshwari
Bench: Rajesh Bindal, J. K. Maheshwari
1
2025 INSC 67
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). OF 2025
[@ DIARY NO(S). 1408 OF 2021]
IN
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 1188 OF 2018
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017
JAI KRISHNA PRASAD YADAV & ORS. PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
DEEPAK KUMAR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
MISC. APPLICATION NO. 1182 OF 2019
IN
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 105 OF 2019
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017
MAHENDRA PRASAD YADAV PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
DEEPAK KUMAR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 636 OF 2019
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017
AWADHESH KUMAR MISHRA PETITIONER(S)
Signature Not Verified
VERSUS
Digitally signed by
NIDHI AHUJA
Date: 2025.01.10
18:15:41 IST
Reason:
DEEPAK KUMAR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
2
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 689 OF 2019
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017
SUKRAM MAHTO PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
SUDHIR TRIPATHI & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1082 OF 2019
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017
PRADEEP KUMAR JHA AND ANR. PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
DEEPAK KUMAR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 675 OF 2020
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017
SHEELA DEVI PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
DEEPAK KUMAR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
3
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). OF 2025
[@DIARY NO. 1370 OF 2021]
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017
ABDUL GHAFOOR (DECEASED)
THROUGH HIS LR SHAHIDA KHATOON PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
DEEPAK KUMAR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). OF 2025
[@ DIARY NO(S). 1382 OF 2021]
IN
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 1755 OF 2018
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017
SHAILENDRA KUMAR ISHWAR PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
SUKHDEV SINGH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 14 OF 2022
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017
RAVINDER KUMAR PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
AMIR SUBHANI AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
4
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 466 OF 2019
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017
HARENDRA PRASAD SINGH PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
DEEPAK KUMAR AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 684 OF 2019
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017
RENUKA MISHRA PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
DEEPAK KUMAR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 962 OF 2019
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017
KRISHNADEV PRASAD YADAV PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
DEEPAK KUMAR AND ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
5
ORDER
1. The present petitions have been filed alleging non-compliance
of the order dated 31.08.2017 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal
No. 2703 of 2017 and batch titled as “Krishna Nand Yadav &
others Vs. Magadh University & others”, whereby, this Court
approved the order of Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) One
Man Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘J. Sinha
Commission’), directing the State to comply with the order within
a period of three months, subject to furnishing declaration of
petitioner that he had been 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.
2. It is now the grievance of the petitioners that even after
recommendation of J. Sinha Commission and orders passed in
their favour, as accepted by this Court, the benefit of arrears of
salary and pension have not been granted by the authorities in
view of the orders passed in subsequent proceedings.
6
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered
the submissions, in the facts, it is not in dispute that the
petitioners in these contempt petitions were not party in Civil
Appeal No. 2703 of 2017 and batch titled as Krishna Nand Yadav
(supra). While the petitioners contend that during absorption
period they have actually worked, the said fact has been disputed
by the respondents in their counter affidavit, inter-alia, submitting
that the arrears of salary of such period is not payable as they have
not worked.
4. In this view of the matter and after perusal of the nature of
the directions issued in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017 and batch
titled as Krishna Nand Yadav (supra), no specific direction in
personam to petitioners regarding payment of salary and arrears
have been issued. Further, considering the counter affidavit of the
State and the tenor of the orders passed in subsequent
proceedings in Contempt Petition (C) No. 1188 of 2018 titled as
“Baidya Nath Choudhary Vs. Dr. Sree Surendra Kumar Singh”, we
find that the issue regarding actual working of the petitioners,
payment of salary and arrears thereof requires adjudication after
fact-finding enquiry, which we are not inclined to hold in these
7
Contempt Petitions. 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
an issue. These orders relate to the fact that the absorbed
employees have received the salaries for the period in which they
had not actually worked. Therefore, the Court directed for 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.
5. It is seen that in the case of the petitioners, the orders of
absorption have been passed by the respective universities after
the orders of J. Sinha Commission, hence, 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 these petitions with
the following directions:
(i) The individual petitioner shall submit his claim
along with relevant documents setting up his
8actual working in college in terms of the orders
of absorption claiming salary, and also for
pension from the date 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).
9
(iv) After adjudicating the issue of pension and
arrears, the same be paid adjusting the
amount 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
10
University, they shall be at liberty to take
recourse as permissible before the High Court.
6. In view of the foregoing, the present contempt petitions stand
disposed of. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands
disposed of.
…………………………………J.
[J. K. MAHESHWARI]
……………….………………..J.
[RAJESH BINDAL]
New Delhi;
January 08, 2025.