Court Dismisses Challenge by Newly Carved Rural Water Department; Grants Time For Compliance With Retrospective Pay Revision Directions

A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal heard Special Leave Petitions and a contempt petition arising from a High Court order that directed payment of Sixth Pay Commission benefits with retrospective effect to certain employees. The petitions were filed by Namami Gange and Rural Water Supply Department (the rural wing of Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam) and the State, challenging the Allahabad High Court's grant of pay revision and consequential retiral benefits from January 1, 2006 instead of March 12, 2010, and seeking relief from contempt proceedings for alleged non‑compliance of this Court's earlier directions.

The Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions and disposed of the tagged contempt petition, holding that the challenge raised after the statutory bifurcation of the Jal Nigam could not be permitted and that earlier orders of this Court remained binding. The Court reiterated that the respondents were "bound to comply with our earlier order" and declined to permit fresh schemes to avoid compliance. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Considering the fact that the directions of which the non‑compliance is alleged were issued as far as back in the month of May, 2022 and even, thereafter, the review petitions have been dismissed in the month of November, 2022/January, 2023, it is not open for the U.P. Jal Nigam and/or the State Government to pray for further six months time and come out with a scheme. Once, there are specific directions issued by this Court and the U.P. Jal Nigam/the State Government are directed to make the payment within the stipulated time and subject to modification as per our earlier order, there is no question of any further scheme to be framed by the U.P.Jal Nigam or the State Government. The applicants are bound to comply with our earlier order. The High Court has not committed any error. The Special Leave Petitions stand dismissed. However, we grant further four weeks time to the applicant(s) to comply with our earlier orders of which the non‑compliance is alleged before the High Court and even before this Court, failing which the matter shall be viewed very seriously and any non‑payment shall be treated as willful disobedience of the directions issued by this Court." The bench ultimately granted three months from the date of the judgment for compliance with the earlier directions.

Background The dispute arose when a group of employees challenged orders of the Jal Nigam and related authorities declining them the benefit of pay revision and consequential retiral benefits from January 1, 2006, and instead awarding benefits from March 12, 2010. The Allahabad High Court quashed the impugned orders and directed payment of Sixth Pay Commission benefits from January 1, 2006 as applicable to State Government employees. The State and U.P. Jal Nigam challenged that decision; a Division Bench dismissed the special appeal, and the State filed a Special Leave Petition before this Court.

This Court, by order dated May 20, 2022, directed deposit of the relevant amounts in the GPF accounts within six months, prescribing 6% per annum interest for delayed payments and allowing retired employees four months for payment of arrears with the same interest provision. Review petitions were dismissed and subsequent applications for extension and schemes were resisted by the employees through contempt proceedings in the High Court. This Court earlier dismissed related Special Leave Petitions on February 10, 2023 but extended four weeks for compliance, warning that non‑payment would be treated as "willful disobedience." The present petitions were filed after the Uttar Pradesh Water Supply and Sewerage (Amendment) Act, 2021 bifurcated U.P. Jal Nigam into urban and rural wings, and the petitioner argued that it did not exist when earlier orders were passed. The Court found that the litigation had been concluded repeatedly and that re‑litigation by a bifurcated entity could not be permitted. The Special Leave Petitions (including SLP(C) Nos.4900 and 4902 of 2023) were dismissed, and Contempt Petition (Civil) No.1212 of 2023 stood disposed of, subject to the three‑month compliance period granted by the Court.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 40 (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4900 of 2023) Case Title: Namami Gange and Rural Water Supply Department v. Om Prakash Singh and Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Counsel not indicated in the judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Counsel not indicated in the judgment]