Jai Krishna Prasad Yadav vs Deepak Kumar

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). OF 2025 [@ DIARY NO(S). 1408 OF 2021] IN CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 1188 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017

JAI KRISHNA PRASAD YADAV & ORS. PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

DEEPAK KUMAR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

MISC. APPLICATION NO. 1182 OF 2019 IN CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 105 OF 2019 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017

MAHENDRA PRASAD YADAV PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

DEEPAK KUMAR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 636 OF 2019 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017

AWADHESH KUMAR MISHRA PETITIONER(S) Signature Not Verified

VERSUS Digitally signed by NIDHI AHUJA Date: 2025.01.10 18:15:41 IST Reason:

DEEPAK KUMAR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) 2

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 689 OF 2019 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017

SUKRAM MAHTO PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

SUDHIR TRIPATHI & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1082 OF 2019 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017

PRADEEP KUMAR JHA AND ANR. PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

DEEPAK KUMAR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 675 OF 2020 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017

SHEELA DEVI PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

DEEPAK KUMAR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

WITH 3

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). OF 2025 [@DIARY NO. 1370 OF 2021] IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017

ABDUL GHAFOOR (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LR SHAHIDA KHATOON PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

DEEPAK KUMAR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). OF 2025 [@ DIARY NO(S). 1382 OF 2021] IN CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 1755 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017

SHAILENDRA KUMAR ISHWAR PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

SUKHDEV SINGH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 14 OF 2022 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017

RAVINDER KUMAR PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

AMIR SUBHANI AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S) 4

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 466 OF 2019 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017

HARENDRA PRASAD SINGH PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

DEEPAK KUMAR AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 684 OF 2019 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017

RENUKA MISHRA PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

DEEPAK KUMAR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 962 OF 2019 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017

KRISHNADEV PRASAD YADAV PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

DEEPAK KUMAR AND ANR. RESPONDENT(S) 5

ORDER

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. 6

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered

the submissions, in the facts, it is not in dispute that the

petitioners in these contempt petitions were not 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 hold in these 7

Contempt Petitions. 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

had 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 8

actual working in college in terms of the orders

of absorption claiming salary, and also for

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). 9

(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

pension be governed by direction (iii).

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

orders of the Registrar/Vice Chancellor of the 10

University, they shall be at liberty to take

recourse as permissible before the High Court.

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.