Supreme Court directs university to adjudicate arrears and pension claims after fact‑finding enquiry

A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal heard a miscellaneous application arising out of Contempt Petition (C) No. 110 of 2019 in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017, filed by Haldhar Prasad Gupta seeking directions for release of arrears of salary, pension and other benefits allegedly unpaid despite an earlier order on absorption dated 27.02.2019.

The Court disposed of the miscellaneous application and directed institutional adjudication rather than undertaking a fresh fact‑finding itself. It held that the issues of actual working days, payment of salary and arrears required a fact‑finding enquiry by the university authorities and that pension claims should be decided "notionally uninfluenced" by certain earlier orders which had put pension payments on hold. The bench referred to the need for an opportunity‑based enquiry and issued time‑bound directions for submission, enquiry and payment. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In view of the factual scenario of the matter and the tenor of the orders passed in subsequent proceedings in Baidya Nath Choudhary (supra), we find that the issue regarding actual working of the petitioner, payment of salary and arrears thereof require adjudication after fact‑finding enquiry, which we are not inclined to hold in this application. 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 have 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." The Court further instructed that "a discrete enquiry be held affording due opportunity" and that any reasoned order on payment of salary and arrears be passed within three months.

Background The petitioner was appointed as Lab In‑charge at Parvati Science College under B.N. Mandal University on 27.09.1978 and was confirmed on 22.02.1979. Following an order of the J. Sinha Commission (a one‑man commission), the petitioner’s claim for absorption was allowed; that order was confirmed by the Supreme Court on 31.08.2017 in the batch matter Krishna Nand Yadav & others v. Magadh University & others. A contempt petition (C) No. 110 of 2019 was earlier filed for alleged non‑compliance; by order dated 27.02.2019 the Court noted that absorption had been ordered and directed payment of the admitted claim after verification, disposing of contempt on acceptance of an unconditional apology.

The present miscellaneous application (diary no. 38122 of 2024) sought directions for release of remaining arrears. The respondents did not file a counter. The Court observed that the petitioner had attained superannuation on 30.11.2016 and that pension payments had been placed on hold following orders in Contempt Petition (C) No. 1188 of 2018 (Baidya Nath Choudhary). Given the factual matrix and the subsequent orders, the Supreme Court held that the appropriate course was to direct the university to conduct an enquiry and adjudicate the claims rather than the Court itself conducting fact‑finding.

The Court disposed of the application with directions: the petitioner was to submit claims with relevant documents to the Registrar/Vice‑Chancellor; a discrete enquiry was to be conducted with opportunities to all parties and a reasoned order on salary and arrears was to be passed within three months; pension claims were to be decided counting service from the date of absorption notionally, without being influenced by the earlier orders that had frozen payments; payments were to be made expeditiously within two months of the adjudication, subject to adjustment of amounts already paid; any excess amounts could be recovered following procedure; and dissatisfied parties retained liberty to approach the High Court.

Case Details: Case No.: MISC. APPLICATION NO. OF 2025 [@ DIARY NO. 38122 OF 2024] in CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 110 OF 2019 in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017 Case Title: Haldhar Prasad Gupta v. Deepak Kumar & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the order For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the order