Remanded

Munshi Lal Mahto v. Sudhir Tripathy

Supreme Court8 Jan 20252025 INSC 622025 INSC 62

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition regarding alleged non-compliance of an absorption order, the Supreme Court held that issues regarding the petitioner's date of birth, pay fixation, and salary arrears require adjudication. The Court did not decide on compliance but directed the authorities to examine the claims through the University Registrar/Vice Chancellor.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner shall submit claims regarding date of birth, pay fixation, and arrears to the Registrar/Vice Chancellor; authorities to adjudicate and pass a reasoned order within three months.

Munshi Lal Mahto versus Sudhir Tripathy — Contempt of Court | Supreme Court (2025)

¶1

2025 INSC 62

¶2

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

¶3

INHERENT JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 115 OF 2019

¶4

¶5

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2703 OF 2017

¶6

SRI MUNSHI LAL MAHTO AND ORS.

¶7

PETITIONER(S)

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

SRI SUDHIR TRIPATHY AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

The petitioners in the present contempt petition 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

¶12

Nand Yadav & others Vs. Magadh University & others” .

¶13

During hearing, it has been informed that except petitioner No. 4, rest of the petitioners are receiving their legible claims since their respective date of absorption, hence they do not wish to press this Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NIDHI AHUJA Date: 2025.01.10 contempt petition. Accordingly, the contempt petition in respect of 18:03:36 IST Reason:

¶14

petitioner nos. 1 to 3 and 5 stands dismissed.

¶15

¶16

So far as petitioner No. 4 is concerned, briefly put, he was appointed on the post of Typist in P.P.K. College, Bundu (Ranchi) on 09.09.1985. 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 29.10.2015, corrected by order dated 04.12.2015. 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 he did not work anywhere else. Vide a notification dated 06.08.2018 of the Ranchi University, he was absorbed w.e.f. 01.07.2015.

¶17

The petitioner submits that after the absorption order of the University he has not received his arrears of salary. The contemnor – Chief Secretary, State of Jharkhand in his counter affidavit has stated that after receipt of the notification dated 06.08.2018 from the University and on scrutiny of his certificates, it was found that he was minor on the date of his appointment, i.e., 09.09.1985, as well

¶18

¶19

as on cut-off date. Therefore, his pay fixation was rejected.

¶20

The State of Jharkhand in its reply to the written submissions of the petitioner No. 4 has stated that the date of birth of the petitioner No. 4 is 05.08.1968 and this crucial fact was concealed by him. Since, he was a minor on the date of his appointment as well as on the cutoff date he was ineligible for such appointment and accordingly, his pay was not fixed. Further, since his appointment is void ab-initio, a detailed enquiry of the original records in regard to continuity of his service has not been done in furtherance of order dated 07.08.2019 of this Court passed in Contempt Petition (C) No. 1188 of 2018 titled as “Baidya Nath Choudhary Vs. Dr. Sree Surendra Kumar Singh.” Hence, there is no case of willful noncompliance.

¶21

We have perused the documents placed and noted that the order of rejection of pay fixation is not on record. It is further noted that after the absorption notification issued by the University; nothing has been brought for de-notifying petitioner no. 4’s absorption.

¶22

¶23

Having considered the submissions, the factual scenario of the matter, counter affidavit of the contemnors 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 date of birth, pay fixation, payment of salary and arrears require adjudication, which we are not inclined to hold in this Contempt Petition.

¶24

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

¶25

& others vs Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K.M & others (2005) 9 SCC

¶26

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

¶27

(i) The petitioner No. 4 shall submit his claim regarding date of birth, pay fixation and arrears of salary along with relevant documents before the Registrar/Vice Chancellor of the University by February 28, 2025. On receiving such claim, it be

¶28

adjudicated affording due opportunity to the

¶29

¶30

employee, college concerned, representative of the

¶31

State and a reasoned order be passed within a

¶32

period of three months.

¶33

(ii) 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

¶34

permissible before the High Court.

¶35