Contempt Petitions Over Non‑payment of Arrears Direct University to Hold Fact‑Finding Enquiry and Adjudicate Claims

A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal heard contempt petitions arising out of alleged non‑compliance of this Court’s order dated 31.08.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017 (Krishna Nand Yadav & others v. Magadh University & others). The petitions challenged non‑payment of salary arrears and pension following absorption orders issued after the J. Sinha One‑Man Commission’s recommendations.

The Court disposed of the contempt petitions while declining to decide disputed factual questions in contempt proceedings. It held that “issues regarding actual working of the individual petitioner, payment of salary and arrears thereof require adjudication after a fact‑finding enquiry” and directed the university authorities to conduct discrete enquiries and decide claims within specified timelines. The Court emphasised that the matter was governed by the principle that factual disputes and payment claims should be determined through an appropriate adjudicatory process rather than in contempt petitions. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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 individual petitioner, payment of salary and arrears thereof require adjudication after a fact‑finding enquiry, which we are not inclined to decide in these Contempt Petitions. It is not reported that after affording an opportunity enquiry has been completed, however, we do not deem it appropriate to keep these matters pending.” The Court further noted that the arrears had been “put on hold” in related proceedings and invoked State of Bihar & others v. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K.M. & others (2005) 9 SCC 129 as the guiding precedent for administrative adjudication.

Background

The petitioners were appointed to various posts in different colleges and secured orders of absorption from the J. Sinha Commission; those orders were confirmed by this Court on 31.08.2017 subject to each petitioner furnishing a declaration of continuous service and non‑employment elsewhere. The petitioners contended that although absorption orders had been notified by Magadh University on different dates, arrears of salary and pension remained unpaid. The State of Bihar filed counter‑affidavit stating that ascertainable arrears for actual working days had been paid and that, pursuant to earlier contempt proceedings (Contempt Petition (C) No. 1188 of 2018 — Baidya Nath Choudhary), a two‑member enquiry committee had found from attendance records that one petitioner had not worked for certain durations while records for others were missing; consequently, the State denied wilful non‑compliance.

The Supreme Court recorded that absorption notifications had been issued on various dates and observed that, because factual questions of actual working period, arrears and pension required adjudication, it would not decide those issues in contempt proceedings. The Court directed that each petitioner submit a claim with relevant documents “setting up his actual working in college in terms of the orders of absorption, claiming salary, and also pension, if any, from the date of absorption upto February 28, 2025 before the Registrar/Vice Chancellor of the University.” It ordered that upon receipt a discrete enquiry be held, affording due opportunity to the employee, the college and the State’s representative, and that a reasoned order be passed regarding payment of salary and arrears within three months. The Court directed that pension claims 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 the Baidya Nath Choudhary proceedings, and that, after adjudication, payments be made (adjusting any amounts already paid) within two months. If any excess amounts were found to have been paid, the university/college/state could recover them by following the prescribed procedure. The Court granted liberty to approach the High Court against the Registrar/Vice‑Chancellor’s order if dissatisfied. The contempt petitions were disposed of accordingly and pending interlocutory applications were also dismissed.

Case Details: Case No.: Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 372 of 2019, 373 of 2019 & 376 of 2019 in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017; 2025 INSC 59 Case Title: Gopal Sharan Singh v. Deepak Kumar and Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the order For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the order