Supreme Court Directs Universities to Adjudicate Salary and Pension Claims of Absorbed Employees After Fact-Finding

A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal heard multiple contempt petitions alleging 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) and connected matters, where this Court had approved the report of the J. Sinha Commission and directed compliance subject to declarations by claimants. The petitions contended that, despite the Commission’s recommendations and this Court’s acceptance, benefits in the nature of arrears of salary and pension were not being paid by university and State authorities.

The Court disposed of the contempt petitions and directed a remedial process before the respective universities. It held that no specific in personam direction had been issued in the earlier order for payment of salary and arrears to persons who were not parties to the leading appeal, and that questions of actual working, entitlement to arrears and pension required a fact‑finding enquiry. 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 decide in these Contempt Petitions." The Court also recorded that earlier orders had addressed cases where absorbed employees had "received the salaries for the period in which they have not actually worked" and therefore had directed "no further payment even for pension" in those proceedings.

Background The petitions arose from claims by numerous absorbed college employees that they were entitled to arrears of salary and pension following absorption into university service after the J. Sinha Commission’s recommendations were accepted by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017. The petitioners said they had been continuously working and sought arrears; the State and university respondents disputed actual working during the relevant period and resisted payment. The petitioners were not parties to the leading appeal and subsequent proceedings, and the State filed counter affidavits asserting non‑entitlement where attendance or actual service was not established. The Court examined the scope of the earlier directions and noted reliance on State of Bihar v. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K.M. & others (2005) 9 SCC 129 for adjudicatory competence. Rather than decide factual entitlement on contempt jurisdiction, the Court ordered that claims be submitted to the Registrar/Vice‑Chancellor of the concerned university and adjudicated by a discrete enquiry. It directed: the individual petitioner shall submit his claim with relevant documents setting up actual working and claim salary and pension up to 28 February 2025; the Registrar/Vice‑Chancellor would hold a discrete enquiry affording due opportunity and pass a reasoned order on salary and arrears within three months; pension claims withheld would 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" in the Baidya Nath Choudhary proceedings; payments ordered were to be made within two months thereafter, with liberty to recover any quantified excess by following prescribed procedure. The Court granted liberty to aggrieved parties to approach the High Court against the Registrar/Vice‑Chancellor’s orders and disposed of pending interlocutory applications.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 60; Contempt Petitions (C) of 2025 in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017 (and connected matters) Case Title: Dhirendra Kumar v. Deepak Kumar & Ors. (and connected contempt petitions in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017 titled Krishna Nand Yadav & others v. Magadh University & others) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the order For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the order

The contempt petitions stood disposed of in accordance with the directions set out by the bench, and parties retained the right to pursue remedies before the High Court against university decisions.