26 May 2025 Employee Related >> Corporate Law  

The Supreme Court has addressed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with its August 31, 2017, order in Krishna Nand Yadav & others Vs. Magadh University & others. The petitioners, formerly non-teaching staff at S.S.J.S. Namdhari College, sought full absorption from their initial appointment dates and payment of salary arrears, arguing that their absorption from December 1, 2008, by Nilamber Pitamber University was insufficient.

Background of the Case:

Initially, a 'One Man Commission' led by Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) had allowed the claims of 28 petitioners for absorption and arrears on December 4, 2015. The Supreme Court upheld these orders on August 31, 2017, contingent on the petitioners providing a declaration confirming their continuous service and non-employment elsewhere. While the university absorbed them via a notification on July 26, 2018, the petitioners contended they should have been absorbed from their original appointment dates.

State's Defense and Court's Findings:

The State of Jharkhand, in its counter-affidavit, challenged the locus standi of petitioner no. 25, Janeshwar Dubey, whose claim was explicitly rejected by the J. Sinha Commission for being limited to compassionate grounds. The Supreme Court concurred, finding no willful non-compliance regarding Dubey and dismissing his part of the contempt petition, while affirming his right to pursue other legal remedies.

For the remaining 28 petitioners, the State argued the contempt petition was not maintainable, citing that they failed to meet the conditions of the August 31, 2017, order. The university reported no records of continuous working for these petitioners despite their declarations. Subsequent inquiries by the State, directed by earlier court orders (September 24, 2018, and July 11, 2019), also failed to find evidence of regular duties or salary payments, with some records being "highly doubtful and suspicious."

Supreme Court's Directions for Remaining Petitioners:

Acknowledging the complex factual disputes regarding actual working, salary payments, and arrears, the Supreme Court stated it was "not inclined to decide" these issues within the scope of a contempt petition. Instead, the Court directed the university authorities to conduct a fresh fact-finding inquiry.

Following the principles laid down in State of Bihar & others vs Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K.M & others (2005) 9 SCC 129, the Court issued the following specific directions for petitioners no. 1 to 24 and 26 to 29:

• Submission of Claims: Each petitioner must submit their claim, along with relevant documents detailing their actual work, salary, and pension (including family pension), to the Registrar/Vice Chancellor of the University within two months.
• Enquiry and Order on Salary: Upon receiving the claims, a "discrete enquiry" must be held, offering the employee, college, and State representatives an opportunity to be heard. A reasoned order regarding salary and arrears must be passed within three months of receiving the claim.
• Pension Adjudication: Claims for pension, if withheld, must be decided by notionally counting service from the absorption date, uninfluenced by prior orders from contempt petitions.
• Payment: After adjudicating pension and arrears, payments must be made as expeditiously as possible, within two months of the order, adjusting for any amounts already paid.
• Recovery of Excess Payment: If any excess amount is found to have been paid for salary or pension, the university/college/state may quantify and recover it following prescribed procedures.
• Joint Claims: If joint claims for arrears and pension were submitted, salary issues fall under direction (ii) and pension under direction (iii).
• Recourse for Dissatisfied Parties: If dissatisfied with the Registrar/Vice Chancellor's orders, parties retain the liberty to approach the High Court.

With these directions, the contempt petition for the remaining petitioners stands disposed of, and all pending interlocutory applications are also closed.