Dr. Yugeshwar Yadav vs Sanjay Kumar
- Neutral2025 INSC 61
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a contempt petition challenges non-compliance with court orders directing payment of salary and pension to an absorbed employee, but the factual foundation for those payments—including verification of actual working days, periods of absence, and calculation of arrears—remains disputed and requires inquiry, the court will not adjudicate the contempt for willful disobedience; instead, it will remit the substantive issues of salary calculation, arrears quantification, and pension eligibility to a subordinate authority for fact-finding inquiry affording due process, reserving the contempt jurisdiction for cases where deliberate non-compliance with clear factual premises is established. Where a court order directing cessation of salary and pension payments was premised on the factual finding that absorbed employees had received salaries for periods in which they had not actually worked, but the subsequent factual inquiry into which periods those were and what the employee's actual working days were has not been completed, the withholding of pension cannot be sustained as compliance with the order; instead, pension eligibility must be adjudicated counting the period of service from the date of absorption, uninfluenced by the prior orders, once the underlying factual questions are resolved through proper inquiry.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2025 INSC 61 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (C) OF 2025 [@DIARY NO. 7955 OF 2022] IN CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 1188 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017
DR. YUGESHWAR YADAV PETITIONER VERSUS SANJAY KUMAR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
1. The petitioner in the present contempt petition has approached
inter-alia contending that by virtue of the interim orders dated
11.07.2019 and 07.08.2019 passed in Contempt Petition (C) No.
1188 of 2018 titled as “Baidya Nath Choudhary Vs. Dr. Sree
Surendra Kumar Singh” in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017 and
batch titled as “Krishna Nand Yadav & others Vs. Magadh
University & others”, his arrears of salary and pension have not Signature Not Verified
been finalized, which may amount to disobedience of the order of this Digitally signed by NIDHI AHUJA Date: 2025.01.10 18:01:19 IST Reason:
Court.
1
2. Briefly put, the petitioner was appointed on the post of lecturer.
The claim of the petitioner regarding absorption was allowed by Mr.
Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) One Man Commission (hereinafter referred
to as ‘J. Sinha Commission’). The said order was confirmed by this
Court vide order dated 31.08.2017 in Krishna Nand Yadav (supra),
subject to furnishing declaration by the petitioner regarding
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. Vide notification
dated 13.07.2018 of the Magadh University, he was absorbed.
3. In the present case, the State of Bihar filed counter affidavit
stating that ascertainable arrears of salary of actual working days
have been paid. It is also said that pursuant to the orders dated
11.07.2019 and 07.08.2019 passed in Contempt Petition (C) No.
1188 of 2018 Baidya Nath Choudhary (supra) two members enquiry
committee found that petitioner has not worked for certain
duration(s), hence, some amount is recoverable. Therefore, for
demand of arrears of salary, no case of deliberate or willful non-
2 compliance can be made out.
4. Having considered the submissions, indisputably, after order of
J. Sinha Commission, the petitioner’s absorption was notified on
13.07.2018. As contended, the ascertainable arrears of salary have
been paid and the excess amount is recoverable. The petitioner has
already attained the age of superannuation. In view of the orders
dated 11.07.2019 and 07.08.2019 of this Court in Contempt Petition
(C) No. 1188 of 2018 Baidya Nath Choudhary (supra), his pension
was put on hold. Thus, the issue of payment of arrears of salary,
verifying the absence period and actual working days after an enquiry
and release of pension are the issues, which require adjudication.
5. In view of the factual scenario of the matter, counter affidavit of
the State 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 actual working
of the petitioner, payment of salary, arrears and excess payment
require adjudication after fact-finding enquiry, which we are not
inclined to hold in this Contempt Petition. So far as stoppage of
3 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 there. 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
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.
6. As per above discussions, in our view, 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 this petition with the following
directions:
(i) The 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 pension from the date
4 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
5 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.
6
7. In view of the foregoing, the present contempt petition stands
disposed of. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands
disposed of.
……...........………............J. [ J. K. MAHESHWARI ]
……............………...........J. [ RAJESH BINDAL ]
New Delhi;
January 08, 2025.
7
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