Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice Against Bihar Government for Non-Compliance with Pension Order

The Supreme Court of India recently issued a strong contempt notice against the State of Bihar for failing to implement its previous orders related to pensionary benefits for employees who were transferred to government service from various corporations. The judgment in the case of Bijay Kumar Sinha & Others vs. Tripurari Sharan & Others highlights the importance of adhering to judicial directives and the consequences of deliberate non-compliance.

Background of the Case

The dispute revolves around the pension rights of employees who were working in different state-owned corporations in Bihar before being transferred to the Treasury Department in 1996. The transfer happened due to a severe staff shortage caused by the fodder scam, which led to mass dismissals and suspensions in the Treasury Department.

After the bifurcation of Bihar into Bihar and Jharkhand in 2000, employees were apportioned between the two states. While employees who were absorbed into Jharkhand received pensionary benefits as per a 2013 order of the Jharkhand High Court (which was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2017), employees allocated to Bihar continued to be denied similar benefits.

After years of litigation, the Patna High Court ruled in 2017 that the Bihar government must grant the same pensionary benefits to its employees. The Bihar government, however, challenged this order in the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s 2020 Order

On March 4, 2020, the Supreme Court dismissed Bihar’s appeal and directed the state government to implement the Patna High Court’s ruling within six months. The order specifically stated:

“The State of Bihar is to implement the impugned LPA judgment and to see that all benefits mentioned therein are paid within six months from today.”

Despite this order, the Bihar government failed to comply, leading the affected employees to file a contempt petition.

Contempt Proceedings

In response to the contempt petition, the Supreme Court issued another order on February 15, 2021, granting the Bihar government three more months to fulfill its obligations. The Court reiterated:

“This has still not been done. We grant the State of Bihar another three months in order to do the needful, i.e., to pay to all these employees exactly what was paid by the State of Jharkhand to the employees who were covered by this order.”

Despite repeated extensions and warnings, the Bihar government once again failed to comply.

Arguments by the Petitioners

The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, contended that:

The Bihar government had willfully disobeyed multiple Supreme Court orders.
The government’s excuse of financial constraints was untenable since Jharkhand had already complied with a similar directive.
Many affected employees had already retired or passed away while waiting for their dues.
The government had made only partial payments, which were far below what was mandated by the Court.

Arguments by the Bihar Government

The Bihar government, represented by Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, argued that:

The state had issued a Government Resolution on September 14, 2020, to implement the Court’s order.
There was no explicit Supreme Court directive specifying that Bihar must exactly match the benefits given by Jharkhand.
The state had partially implemented the order and needed more time for full compliance.
The government was facing financial difficulties due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice B.R. Gavai, strongly rebuked the Bihar government for failing to comply with its clear and repeated orders. The Court observed:

“We do not find any merit in the submissions made by the State of Bihar. The High Court’s 2017 order was unequivocal in directing that pensionary benefits must be granted. Our order of March 4, 2020, left no room for ambiguity.”

“The Government Resolution of September 14, 2020, is not in compliance with our directive. The state cannot partially comply with the order at its discretion.”

“The failure to execute judicial orders in a timely manner amounts to deliberate disobedience and constitutes contempt of this Court.”

Final Judgment

Given the Bihar government’s repeated failure to comply, the Supreme Court issued a contempt notice and directed the responsible officials to appear in person on February 22, 2022, to show cause as to why they should not be punished for contempt. The Court warned:

“Needless to state that compliance of the directions, in the meantime, will have a bearing on the punishment that may be inflicted upon the respondent contemnors.”

Legal Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has several key legal implications:

Judicial Orders Must Be Followed: State governments cannot ignore Supreme Court rulings under any circumstances.
Contempt Has Serious Consequences: Non-compliance with Court orders can lead to personal liability for government officials.
Equal Treatment for Employees: Governments must ensure uniform application of pension policies to similarly placed employees.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling sends a strong message that no entity, including state governments, is above the law. By holding Bihar accountable, the Court reaffirms that judicial orders must be executed promptly and in full measure. The outcome of the contempt proceedings on February 22, 2022, will determine whether the Bihar government finally fulfills its obligations or faces further legal consequences.

Petitioner Name: Bijay Kumar Sinha & Others.
Respondent Name: Tripurari Sharan & Others.
Judgment By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice B.R. Gavai.
Place Of Incident: Bihar.
Judgment Date: 18-01-2022.

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

Download Judgment: bijay-kumar-sinha-&-vs-tripurari-sharan-&-o-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-18-01-2022.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Pension and Gratuity
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Contempt Of Court cases
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in Judgment by B R Gavai
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2022
See all petitions in 2022 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