Dhirendra Kumar vs Deepak Kumar
- Neutral2025 INSC 60
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where petitioners to contempt petitions were not parties to the original judgment whose violation is alleged, and the original judgment contains no specific direction in personam to those petitioners regarding payment of arrears, a contempt petition is not the appropriate forum to decide disputed questions of fact concerning whether those petitioners actually worked and whether arrears are payable; such disputes require adjudication through an independent fact-finding enquiry before the appropriate administrative authority, not through contempt proceedings. Where the court has previously directed that absorbed employees shall not receive further payment (including pension) for periods in which they did not actually work, and the petitioners dispute that they failed to work, the court should not continue to enforce the previous direction through contempt but should instead remit the matter for fresh adjudication before the Registrar/Vice Chancellor with an opportunity for the petitioners to prove actual working, uninfluenced by the earlier orders.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) OF 2025 [@DIARY NO. 20329 OF 2020]
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017
DHIRENDRA KUMAR PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
DEEPAK KUMAR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) OF 2025 [@DIARY NO. 25623 OF 2020]
IN
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 1755 OF 2018
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017
RANJEET SINGH PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
SUKHDEV SINGH AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by NIDHI AHUJA Date: 2025.01.10 17:59:06 IST Reason: 2 CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 377 OF 2019
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017
ANIL KUMAR AND ORS. PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
DEEPAK KUMAR AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. OF 2025 [@ DIARY NO. 25626 OF 2020]
IN
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 1755 OF 2018
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017
D.N. UPADHYAY PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
SH. SUKHDEV SINGH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 358 OF 2019
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017 3 DR. DHANANJAY KUMAR AND ORS. PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
SH. DEEPAK KUMAR AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. OF 2025 [@ DIARY NO. 16177 OF 2020]
IN
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 117 OF 2019
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017
ASHA KUMARI PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
SH. DEEPAK KUMAR AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 378 OF 2019 IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017
MD. ABID ANSARI AND ORS. PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
SH. DEEPAK KUMAR AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
4
1. The present petitions have been filed alleging non-compliance
of the order dated 31.08.2017 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal
No. 2703 of 2017 and batch titled as “Krishna Nand Yadav &
others Vs. Magadh University & others”, whereby, this Court
approved the order of Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) One
Man Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘J. Sinha
Commission’), directing the State to comply with the order within
a period of three months, subject to furnishing declaration of
petitioner that he had been continuously working and attending
the college regularly since the date of appointment till date or in
case of retirement, till the date of retirement and that he did not
work anywhere else.
2. It is now the grievance of the petitioners that even after
recommendation of J. Sinha Commission and orders passed in
their favour, as accepted by this Court, the benefit of arrears of
salary and pension have not been granted by the authorities in
view of the orders passed in subsequent proceedings.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered 5 the submissions. In the facts, it is not in dispute that the
petitioners in these contempt petitions were not a party in Civil
Appeal No. 2703 of 2017 and batch titled as Krishna Nand Yadav
(supra). While the petitioners contend that during absorption
period they have actually worked, the said fact has been disputed
by the respondents in their counter affidavit, inter-alia, submitting
that the arrears of salary of such period is not payable as they have
not worked.
4. 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. So far as stoppage of pension is concerned, 6 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.
5. It is seen that in the case of the petitioners, the orders of
absorption have been passed by the respective universities after
the orders of J. Sinha Commission, hence, it would be appropriate
to direct the authorities to adjudicate all the said issues through
Registrar/Vice Chancellor in view of the judgment of State of
Bihar & others vs Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K.M & others (2005)
9 SCC 129 and accordingly, we dispose of these petitions with
the following directions:
(i) The individual petitioner shall submit his claim
along with relevant documents setting up his
actual working in college in terms of the orders
of absorption claiming salary, and also for 7 pension from the date of absorption upto
February 28, 2025 before the Registrar/Vice
Chancellor of the University.
(ii) On receiving the claim of salary, a discrete
enquiry be held affording due opportunity to
the employee, college concerned and the
representative of the State if required, and a
reasoned order be passed regarding payment
of salary and arrears, if any, within a period of
three months thereafter.
(iii) The claim regarding pension of petitioner
which has been withheld 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 Contempt Petition (C) No. 1188 of
2018 in Baidya Nath Choudhary (supra).
(iv) After adjudicating the issue of pension and
arrears the same be paid adjusting the amount 8 already paid as expeditiously as possible not
later than two months from the date of such
order.
(v) Upon adjudication, if it is found that any
excess amount has been paid either in the
head of salary or pension, it be quantified and
the university/college/state as the case may
be, shall be at liberty to take recourse to
recover the same following the procedure as
prescribed.
(vi) We make it clear that if the employees have
submitted the joint claim of arrears of salary
and pension, in that event the issue of arrears
of salary be governed by direction No. (ii) and
pension be governed by direction (iii).
(vii) In case the parties feel dissatisfied by the
orders of the Registrar/Vice Chancellor of the
University, they shall be at liberty to take
recourse as permissible before the High Court. 9
6. In view of the foregoing, the present contempt petitions stand
disposed of. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands
disposed of.
……….........………............J. [J. K. MAHESHWARI]
………..........………...........J. [RAJESH BINDAL] New Delhi;
January 08, 2025
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free