Disposed

Haldhar Prasad Gupta v. Deepak Kumar

Supreme Court8 Jan 20252025 INSC 682025 INSC 68

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of a miscellaneous application. The Court directed the University authorities to conduct an inquiry regarding the petitioner's actual working days to determine salary arrears and to decide on pension claims separately, citing State of Bihar vs Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K.M.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the University Registrar/Vice-Chancellor to conduct an inquiry for salary arrears and decide pension claims separately within specified timelines.

What the court decided

Haldhar Prasad Gupta versus Deepak Kumar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Supreme Court (2025)

¶1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 2025 INSC 68 INHERENT JURISDICTION

¶2

MISC. APPLICATION NO. OF 2025

¶3

[@ DIARY NO. 38122 OF 2024] IN CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 110 OF 2019 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017

¶4

HALDHAR PRASAD GUPTA PETITIONER

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

DEEPAK KUMAR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

The petitioner has filed the present miscellaneous application seeking directions against contemnors to release arrears of salary, pension and other benefits as directed vide order dated 27.02.2019 passed in Contempt Petition (C) No. 110 of 2019 filed in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017 and batch titled

¶9

as “Krishna Nand Yadav & others Vs. Magadh University &

¶10

others” .

¶11

Briefly put, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lab In-charge in Parvati Science College under B.N. Mandal University on 27.09.1978 and confirmed on 22.02.1979. The

¶12

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NIDHI AHUJA Date: 2025.01.10 18:18:12 IST Reason:

¶13

claim of petitioner regarding absorption was allowed by Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) One Man Commission (hereinafter

¶14

¶15

referred to as ‘J. Sinha Commission’ ). The said order was confirmed by this Court vide order dated 31.08.2017 passed in

¶16

Krishna Nand Yadav (supra) .

¶17

For alleged non-compliance, the petitioner filed the Contempt Petition (C) No. 110 of 2019. On 27.02.2019, the Court observed that absorption has been ordered and the payment of the admitted claim has also been made to the petitioner, if there are any remaining arrears, it be paid after verification within four weeks. In this view, accepting unconditional apology, the Contempt Petition was disposed of.

¶18

Even after service, no counter has been filed in the present application.

¶19

Having considered the submissions, indisputably, after order of J. Sinha Commission, the petitioner’s absorption was notified on 18.09.2018. He has already attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.2016. In view of the orders dated 11.07.2019 and 07.08.2019 of this Court in Contempt Petition (C) No. 1188 of 2018 titled as “Baidya Nath Choudhary Vs. Dr.

¶20

Sree Surendra Kumar Singh” his pension has been put on hold. Thus, the issue of payment of arrears of salary verifying

¶21

¶22

the absence period and actual working days after an enquiry, and the stoppage of pension are the issues, which require adjudication.

¶23

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 application. 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.

¶24

It is seen that in the case of the petitioner, the order of absorption have been passed by the concerned university after

¶25

the order of J. Sinha Commission, hence, it would be

¶26

¶27

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 application with the following directions:

¶28

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

¶29

(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.

¶30

(iii) The claim regarding pension of petitioner which has been withheld be decided counting the period

¶31

¶32

of service, w.e.f. the 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

¶33

Choudhary (supra) .

¶34

(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.

¶35

(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.

¶36

(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

¶37

¶38

governed by direction (iii).

¶39

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

¶40

the Registrar/Vice Chancellor of the University, they shall be at liberty to take recourse as permissible before the High Court.

¶41

In view of the foregoing, the present miscellaneous application stands disposed of. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶42

..........………............J.

¶43

[ J. K. MAHESHWARI ]

¶44

...........………...........J.

¶45

[ RAJESH BINDAL ]

¶46

New Delhi; January 08, 2025.

¶47

Haldhar Prasad Gupta v. Deepak Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Haldhar Prasad Gupta v. Deepak Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Narayan Singh versus Sanjay Kumar

Anraj Devi versus Deepak Kumar

Prashant Bandyopadhyay versus Sudhir Tripathi