Supreme Court directs University to adjudicate disputed absorption, pay fixation and arrears; disposes contempt petition

A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal heard a contempt petition arising out of alleged non‑compliance with this Court’s order dated 31.08.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017 (Krishna Nand Yadav & others v. Magadh University & others). The petitioners challenged non‑implementation of absorption and related monetary claims; the Court considered factual disputes concerning date of birth, pay fixation and arrears and the scope of a contempt forum.

The Court held that most petitioners had already received their legitimate claims and therefore their contempt applications stood dismissed, while the remaining grievance required adjudication by the University rather than by the contempt jurisdiction. The Court observed that it was “not inclined to hold” determination of substantive issues in the contempt petition and directed the Registrar/Vice‑Chancellor of the University to adjudicate the remaining claims within a fixed timeline. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Having considered the submissions, the factual scenario of the matter, counter affidavit of the contemnors 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 date of birth, pay fixation, payment of salary and arrears require adjudication, which we are not inclined to hold in this Contempt Petition.” The Court further directed that the petitioner must file his claim and documents by February 28, 2025 and that the Registrar/Vice‑Chancellor shall decide the matter after affording opportunity to all concerned and pass a reasoned order within three months; dissatisfied parties retained liberty to approach the High Court.

Background The contempt petition (C) No. 115 of 2019 arose from the implementation of absorption orders concerning erstwhile ad‑hoc or temporary employees. Petitioner No. 4 was appointed as a Typist in P.P.K. College, Bundu (Ranchi) on 09.09.1985. A One‑Man Commission under Justice S.B. Sinha allowed his claim of absorption by order dated 29.10.2015 (corrected 04.12.2015), and this Court confirmed that order on 31.08.2017 subject to a declaration about continuous service and non‑employment elsewhere. Ranchi University issued a notification dated 06.08.2018 stating absorption w.e.f. 01.07.2015. The petitioner contended that he had not received arrears of salary after absorption.

The State responded that on scrutiny of records it was found the petitioner’s date of birth was 05.08.1968 and that he was a minor on the date of appointment and on the cut‑off date, rendering him ineligible; consequently, pay fixation was rejected and the appointment was treated as void ab initio. The State maintained that there was therefore no wilful non‑compliance. The Court observed that the rejected pay fixation order was not on record and that no steps had been shown to de‑notify the petitioner’s absorption following the University notification.

Relying on procedural principles and prior precedent (State of Bihar & others v. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K.M. & others, (2005) 9 SCC 129), the Court declined to adjudicate the substantive disputes in contempt proceedings and directed institutional adjudication by the University authorities. The Court disposed of the contempt petition: the applications of petitioners Nos. 1–3 and 5 were dismissed as they were receiving their dues; Contemnor‑State’s counter‑affidavit and the material on record led the Court to direct submission and adjudication of claims for petitioner No. 4. The petition was disposed of and pending interlocutory applications were also disposed.

Case Details: Case No.: Contempt Petition (C) No. 115 of 2019 (In Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017); Citation: 2025 INSC 62 Case Title: Sri Munshi Lal Mahto and Ors. v. Sri Sudhir Tripathy and Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the order For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the order