Prashant Bandyopadhyay vs Sudhir Tripathi

2025 INSC 63 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION

CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 735 OF 2019

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017

PRASHANT BANDYOPADHYAY & ANR. PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

SUDHIR TRIPATHI & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

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. The present Contempt Petition is being entertained only on

behalf of petitioner No. 1 – Prashant Bandyopadhyay. So far as

petitioner No. 2 – Hiralal Ram is concerned, who is reported to have

expired, we do not find any order that has been passed in his Signature Not Verified

favour by Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) One Man Commission Digitally signed by NIDHI AHUJA Date: 2025.01.10 18:06:11 IST Reason:

(hereinafter referred to as “J. Sinha Commission”), against which 2

any contempt can be made out. Therefore, we are not inclined to

entertain the claim of petitioner No. 2. The contempt petition, so

far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, is dismissed and the

application for substitution of his legal heirs is hereby rejected.

3. Insofar as petitioner no. 1 – Prasant Bandyopadhyay is

concerned, he was appointed as a Routine Clerk in ABM College,

Jamshedpur. His claim regarding payment of salary was allowed

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

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

dated 23.01.2016. 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 15.09.2018 of the Kolhan University, he was

absorbed w.e.f. 22.10.1986.

4. The petitioner No. 1 submits that he has received his arrears

of salary only from the date of bifurcation of State of Jharkhand

from State of Bihar, i.e., 15.11.2000 till his superannuation, i.e., 3

31.08.2016. However, his arrears from the date of absorption till

bifurcation are still pending, though recommended by the

University vide chart dated 13.09.2018 which was submitted to

State of Jharkhand on 14.09.2018.

5. The State of Jharkhand in its counter affidavit has stated that

on enquiry pursuant to 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” two

members enquiry committee found discrepancies in attendance

register and 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.

6. We have perused the documents and it is reported that

petitioner No. 1 was allocated to the State of Jharkhand and

accordingly, the State released his arrears of salary from the date

of creation of State of Jharkhand. In the present contempt

petition, no one has been joined as contemnor from State of Bihar,

therefore, adjudication of the claim of arrears of salary from the 4

date of absorption till bifurcation cannot be gone into in the

present contempt petition.

7. On perusal of the documents produced, the claim regarding

his working in the State of Bihar is not ascertainable. So far as his

working in the State of Jharkhand, salary has already been

decided and paid. In case any surviving claim is there, he is at

liberty to put forth such claim along with the issue of pension. We

make it clear that in the orders dated 11.07.2019, 07.08.2019 and

12.02.2021, passed in Contempt Petition (C) No. 1188 of 2018

titled as “Baidya Nath Choudhary (supra)” 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 for no further payment even of pension. It is not

reported that affording opportunity enquiry has been completed,

however, we do not deem it appropriate to keep these matters

pending.

8. 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 5

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 No. 1 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 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 No. 1

which has been withheld be decided counting 6

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 7

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. 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.