Absorbed Employees' Claims for Salary and Pension Must Be Adjudicated by Universities After Fact‑Finding, Supreme Court Directs

A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal heard a batch of contempt petitions arising out of Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017 (Krishna Nand Yadav & ors. v. Magadh University & ors.) and related proceedings, where petitioners alleged non‑compliance of this Court’s order dated 31.08.2017 and sought payment of arrears of salary and pension following absorption by universities.

The Court disposed of the contempt petitions while holding that the question whether individual employees had "actually worked" during the absorption period required a fresh fact‑finding enquiry by the universities and could not be determined in contempt proceedings. It directed each petitioner to submit detailed claims to the Registrar/Vice‑Chancellor and ordered a discrete enquiry, affording opportunity to the employee, the college and the State, with a reasoned order to be passed within three months. The Court clarified that pension claims withheld were to 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" and provided timelines for payment and adjustment. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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 Contempt Petitions."

Background The petitions arose after this Court had approved the recommendations of the One‑Man J. Sinha Commission and directed the State to comply subject to declarations by beneficiaries regarding continuous work and non‑employment elsewhere. Numerous employees, subsequently absorbed by various universities, contended that they had worked during the period of absorption and claimed arrears of salary and pension. The State filed counter‑affidavits disputing actual working and withheld payments, and subsequent orders in related contempt proceedings (notably in Baidya Nath Choudhary) addressed instances where salaries were shown to have been paid for periods when employees had not actually worked.

The Court noted that many petitioners were not parties to the original Civil Appeal and that no specific in personam direction had been issued to them for payment of arrears. Applying the principle in State of Bihar & others v. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K.M & others (2005) 9 SCC 129, the Court directed university authorities to adjudicate claims through Registrar/Vice‑Chancellor mechanisms. It held that pension claims should be decided by counting service from the date of absorption without being influenced by the earlier orders dated 11.07.2019, 07.08.2019 and 12.02.2021. The Court disposed the contempt petitions with detailed directions: petitioners must submit claims with documents for the period from date of absorption up to February 28, 2025; universities must hold discrete enquiries and pass reasoned orders within three months; after adjudication, pension and arrears must be paid (adjusting any amounts already paid) within two months; any excess paid could be recovered by the university/state following prescribed procedure; and dissatisfied parties retained liberty to approach the High Court.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017; Contempt Petitions (C) Nos. 1188 of 2018, 105 of 2019, 636 of 2019, 689 of 2019, 1082 of 2019, 675 of 2020, 14 of 2022, 466 of 2019, 684 of 2019, 962 of 2019 and others (Diary Nos. 1370, 1382, 1408 of 2021) Case Title: Jai Krishna Prasad Yadav & Ors. v. Deepak Kumar & Ors. (batch arising from Krishna Nand Yadav & Ors. v. Magadh University & Ors.) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the order For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the order

The order was pronounced by Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal in New Delhi on January 8, 2025, and the contempt petitions stood disposed of in accordance with the directions.