Meera Singh vs Deepak Kumar

CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 741 OF 2020 IN CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 1030 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017

MEERA SINGH PETITIONER VERSUS DEEPAK KUMAR AND ORS. RESPONDENTS

ORDER

1. The petitioner in the present contempt petition is aggrieved

by the alleged non-compliance of the order dated 27.02.2019

passed in Contempt Petition (C) No. 1030 of 2018, filed in Civil

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

Yadav & others Vs. Magadh University & others”.

2. Briefly put, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NIDHI AHUJA Date: 2025.01.10 18:11:12 IST

lecturer in Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur, Bihar Reason:

w.e.f. 07.09.1981. 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’)

vide order dated 03.08.2015. 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 she did not work

anywhere else. Vide a notification dated 17.09.2018 of the Magadh

University, she was absorbed.

3. The petitioner felt that the said order was not complied with,

hence, she had filed the Contempt Petition (C) No. 1030 of 2018

for alleged non-compliance. On 27.02.2019, the Court observed

that absorption has been ordered and the payment to the admitted

claim has also been made, if there are any remaining arrears it be

paid to petitioner after verification within four weeks. In this view,

accepting unconditional apology, the Contempt Petition was

disposed of. The petitioner raising a grievance that the direction issued in main case and also in contempt petition has not been

complied, hence, filed the present petition.

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. 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 Vs. Dr. Sree Surendra

Kumar Singh” two members enquiry committee was not in a

position to verify the absence period and the actual working period,

therefore, for demand of arrears of salary, no case of deliberate or

willful non-compliance can be made out.

5. Having considered the submissions, undisputedly, after

order of J. Sinha Commission, the petitioner’s absorption was

notified on 17.09.2018. As contended, the ascertainable arrears of

salary were also paid. She has already attained the age of

superannuation on 31.12.2019. In view of the orders dated

11.07.2019 and 07.08.2019 of this Court in Baidya Nath

Choudhary (supra), her pension was put on hold by university

vide order dated 03.06.2020. Thus, the issue of payment of arrears of salary verifying the absence period and actual working days

after an enquiry is an issue and the pension stopped is also an

issue which require adjudication.

6. In view of the factual scenario of the matter and the tenor of

the orders passed in subsequent proceedings in Baidya Nath

Choudhary (supra), we find that the issue regarding actual

working of the petitioner, payment of salary and arrears thereof

require adjudication after fact-finding enquiry, which we are not

inclined to hold in this Contempt Petition. 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 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.

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 and accordingly, we dispose of this

petition with the following directions:

(i) The petitioner shall submit her claim along with

relevant documents setting up her 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).

(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 University,

they shall be at liberty to take recourse as

permissible before the High Court.

8. 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.