Gopal Sharan Singh vs Deepak Kumar

CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 372 OF 2019

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017

GOPAL SHARAN SINGH PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

DEEPAK KUMAR AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 373 OF 2019

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017

MAHENDRA KUMAR SINGH PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

DEEPAK KUMAR AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 376 OF 2019

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017

SHYAM SHARAN SHAH AND ANR. PETITIONER(S) Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by NIDHI AHUJA Date: 2025.01.10 VERSUS 17:56:33 IST Reason:

DEEPAK KUMAR AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S) 2 ORDER

1. The petitioners in the present contempt petitions are aggrieved

by the alleged non-compliance of the order dated 31.08.2017 passed

in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017 and batch titled as “Krishna Nand

Yadav & others Vs. Magadh University & others”.

2. Briefly put the petitioners were appointed on various posts in

different colleges. The claims of the petitioners regarding absorption

were allowed by Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) One Man Commission

(hereinafter referred to as ‘J. Sinha Commission’) vide various orders

on different dates. The said orders were confirmed by this Court vide

order dated 31.08.2017 in Krishna Nand Yadav (supra), subject to

furnishing declaration by the respective 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.

3. The petitioners submit that while they have been absorbed by

the university vide different orders on various dates, their arrears of

salary and pension, if any, have not been paid by the contemnors,

therefore, the present petitions have been filed. 3

4. In the present case, the State of Bihar filed counter affidavit

stating that ascertainable arrears of salary of actual working days

have been paid and 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 titled as “Baidya Nath Choudhary Vs. Dr. Sree

Surendra Kumar Singh” the two member-enquiry committee

observed that based on the attendance records for one of the

petitioners he was found to have not worked for certain duration.

For other petitioners, proper records were not available, hence their

actual working period could not be ascertained. Therefore, no case

of wilful non-compliance can be made out.

5. Having considered the submissions, indisputably, after order

of J. Sinha Commission, the absorption of the petitioners was

notified by Magadh University on different dates and vide different

orders. The details are as under: -

Name Date of Absorption w.e.f. notification the following date Mr. Gopal Sharan Singh 03.12.2018 01.03.2005 Mr. Mahendra Kumar Singh 03.12.2018 01.03.2015 Mr. Shyam Sharan Shah 19.12.2018 01.08.2007 Mr. Bishwa Nath Singh 19.12.2018 01.03.2014 4

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), their arrears were put on hold. Thus, the issue of

payment of arrears of salary after verifying the absence period and

actual working days and pension, if any, are the issues which require

adjudication.

6. 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

individual petitioner, payment of salary and arrears thereof require

adjudication after a fact-finding enquiry, which we are not inclined to

decide in these Contempt Petitions. It is not reported that after

affording an opportunity enquiry has been completed, however, we do

not deem it appropriate to keep these matters pending.

7. 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 5 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 pension, if

any, 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, if any, 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 6 Contempt Petition (C) No. 1188 of 2018 “Baidya

Nath Choudhary (supra)”.

(iv) After adjudicating the issue of pension and arrears,

the same be paid adjusting the amount 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 of pension by

direction (iii).

(vii) In case, the parties feel dissatisfied by the orders of

the Registrar/Vice Chancellor of the University, 7 they shall be at liberty to take recourse as

permissible before the High Court.

8. 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.