Pension and Salary Dispute: Supreme Court Directs University to Adjudicate Absorbed Lecturer’s Claims

The Supreme Court of India recently adjudicated an important case concerning salary arrears and pension entitlement for an absorbed lecturer, Baidya Nath Choudhary, in the case Baidya Nath Choudhary vs. Dr. Sree Surendra Kumar Singh. The petitioner alleged non-compliance with a prior order that affirmed his absorption as a lecturer and sought relief regarding pending salary arrears and pension benefits.

The matter, which was originally ruled upon in Krishna Nand Yadav & Others vs. Magadh University & Others, led to a contempt petition alleging that the concerned authorities failed to execute the Court’s directive. The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the complexities in the case, refrained from holding the respondents in contempt but provided clear directions to resolve the pending disputes regarding the petitioner’s service benefits.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose from the absorption of the petitioner as a lecturer at R.L. College Madhav Nagar. The petitioner contended that:

His absorption was upheld by Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) One Man Commission on 21.11.2014.
The Supreme Court, in its 31.08.2017 ruling, confirmed the absorption, provided the petitioner declared that he had continuously worked at the college from his appointment till retirement.
Despite the Court’s ruling, Magadh University issued multiple orders altering his absorption date—first to 21.04.1995, then to 15.12.1993, and finally to 12.09.1976, the date of his confirmation on the sanctioned post.
The State of Bihar argued that the petitioner was not entitled to salary arrears since he had not worked continuously during the relevant period.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner approached the Supreme Court with the following claims:

He was entitled to arrears of salary from the date of his absorption.
The stoppage of pension was arbitrary and against the Court’s prior ruling.
The University’s multiple modifications to his absorption date were unjustified.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents, including the State of Bihar, countered the petitioner’s claims with the following arguments:

The petitioner had not continuously worked at the college during the period for which he claimed salary.
The arrears of salary were not payable as per service records.
The pension was withheld in accordance with previous Supreme Court orders concerning salary payments to absorbed employees who had not actually worked.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court carefully examined the facts and noted that:

The petitioner had already attained superannuation on 31.10.2018.
His absorption was duly notified after Justice Sinha’s Commission ruling.
The issues regarding actual working days, salary arrears, and pension eligibility required a fact-finding inquiry.
The Court was not inclined to conduct such an inquiry within the scope of a contempt petition.
Prior orders dated 11.07.2019, 07.08.2019, and 12.02.2021 had only directed that salaries should not be paid for periods where employees did not actually work.

Supreme Court’s Final Directions

The Court disposed of the contempt petition with the following directions:

The petitioner must submit a claim along with supporting documents regarding his actual working days, salary arrears, and pension before the Registrar/Vice-Chancellor of Magadh University by February 28, 2025.
A discreet inquiry must be conducted by the University, affording due opportunity to the petitioner, the concerned college, and representatives of the State, before making a decision on salary arrears.
The inquiry must conclude within three months from submission, and a reasoned order regarding salary and arrears must be issued.
The petitioner’s pension claim must be adjudicated separately, based on the period of service from the date of absorption, uninfluenced by prior Supreme Court orders on salary stoppage.
Prolonged periods of absence must be dealt with by the competent authority as per service rules.
Upon adjudication, pension and arrears, if any, must be paid within two months from the decision date.
If any excess payments were made under the head of salary or pension, the University or State is at liberty to recover them.
If the petitioner has submitted a joint claim for salary and pension, each must be decided separately under the respective directives.
Parties dissatisfied with the Registrar/Vice-Chancellor’s decision may approach the High Court for further relief.

Legal Implications of the Judgment

This ruling reinforces several legal principles:

Fact-finding is crucial: Salary arrears and pension claims require proper verification of actual service rendered.
Judicial restraint in contempt petitions: The Supreme Court reiterated that contempt proceedings cannot be used to adjudicate disputed claims.
Due process in financial entitlements: Employees must be given an opportunity to establish their claims through administrative mechanisms before seeking judicial enforcement.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s approach in this case reflects a balance between ensuring compliance with past rulings and maintaining due process in determining financial entitlements. By directing the University to conduct a fact-based inquiry, the Court has provided a structured framework for resolving the petitioner’s claims while upholding legal precedents on salary and pension entitlement.

The decision serves as an important reminder for absorbed employees and educational institutions to meticulously document service periods and claims, ensuring that disputes over financial benefits are resolved through appropriate administrative channels before reaching the courts.

Petitioner Name: Baidya Nath Choudhary.
Respondent Name: Dr. Sree Surendra Kumar Singh.
Judgment By: Justice J.K. Maheshwari, Justice Rajesh Bindal.
Place Of Incident: Bihar.
Judgment Date: 08-01-2025.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: baidya-nath-choudhar-vs-dr.-sree-surendra-ku-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-08-01-2025.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Pension and Gratuity
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by J.K. Maheshwari
See all petitions in Judgment by Rajesh Bindal
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2025
See all petitions in 2025 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category