Dismissed

Dr. Yugeshwar Yadav v. Sanjay Kumar

Supreme Court8 Jan 20252025 INSC 612025 INSC 61

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court disposed of a contempt petition regarding the petitioner's unpaid salary arrears and withheld pension. The Court directed university authorities to establish facts through an enquiry, decide pension claims, calculate arrears, and order payment or recovery within specified time limits.

What did the court decide?

Directed Registrar/Vice Chancellor to conduct an enquiry, determine salary arrears and pension claims, order payment or recovery within specified timelines, and allow further remedy before the High Co

Dr. Yugeshwar Yadav versus Sanjay Kumar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Supreme Court (2025)

¶1

2025 INSC 61

¶2

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

¶3

INHERENT JURISDICTION

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION (C) OF 2025 [@DIARY NO. 7955 OF 2022] IN

¶5

CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 1188 OF 2018

¶6

¶7

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017

¶8

DR. YUGESHWAR YADAV PETITIONER

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

SANJAY KUMAR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The petitioner in the present contempt petition has approached inter-alia contending that by virtue of the interim 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” in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017 and batch titled as “Krishna Nand Yadav & others Vs. Magadh University & others”, his arrears of salary and pension have not Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NIDHI AHUJA Date: 2025.01.10 been finalized, which may amount to disobedience of the order of this 18:01:19 IST Reason:

¶13

Court.

¶14

¶15

Briefly put, the petitioner was appointed on the post of lecturer. 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’ ). 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 13.07.2018 of the Magadh University, he was absorbed.

¶16

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 (supra) two members enquiry committee found that petitioner has not worked for certain duration(s), hence, some amount is recoverable. Therefore, for demand of arrears of salary, no case of deliberate or willful non-

¶17

¶18

compliance can be made out.

¶19

Having considered the submissions, indisputably, after order of J. Sinha Commission, the petitioner’s absorption was notified on 13.07.2018. As contended, the ascertainable arrears of salary have been paid and the excess amount is recoverable. The petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation. 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) , his pension was put on hold. Thus, the issue of payment of arrears of salary, verifying the absence period and actual working days after an enquiry and release of pension are the issues, which require adjudication.

¶20

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 petitioner, payment of salary, arrears and excess payment require adjudication after fact-finding enquiry, which we are not inclined to hold in this Contempt Petition. So far as stoppage of

¶21

¶22

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 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 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.

¶23

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

¶24

129 and accordingly, we dispose of this petition with the following directions:

¶25

(i) The 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 for pension from the date

¶26

¶27

of absorption upto February 28, 2025 before the Registrar/Vice Chancellor of the University.

¶28

(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.

¶29

(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) .

¶30

(iv) After adjudicating the issue of pension and arrears the same be paid adjusting the amount

¶31

¶32

already paid as expeditiously as possible not later

¶33

than two months from the date of such order.

¶34

(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.

¶35

(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).

¶36

(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.

¶37

¶38

In view of the foregoing, the present contempt petition stands

¶39

disposed of. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶40

……...........………............J.

¶41

[ J. K. MAHESHWARI ]

¶42

……............………...........J.

¶43

[ RAJESH BINDAL ]

¶44

New Delhi; January 08, 2025.

¶45

Dr. Yugeshwar Yadav v. Sanjay Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Yugeshwar Yadav v. Sanjay Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Narayan Singh versus Sanjay Kumar

Anraj Devi versus Deepak Kumar

Prashant Bandyopadhyay versus Sudhir Tripathi