Supreme Court Orders University to Resolve Pension and Salary Disputes for Absorbed Lecturer

The case of Meera Singh vs. Deepak Kumar & Ors. is a significant legal dispute concerning the non-compliance of a previous Supreme Court order regarding salary arrears and pension payments for absorbed university employees. The petitioner, a former lecturer at Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bihar, sought relief from the Court due to the failure of the university authorities to comply with past rulings on service benefits.

This case is part of a broader legal battle stemming from Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017, which involved university employees claiming their rightful absorption into government service and the associated salary and pension benefits.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Meera Singh, was appointed as a lecturer at Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University on September 7, 1981. Her claim for absorption into government service was initially allowed by the J. Sinha Commission on August 3, 2015. This decision was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court on August 31, 2017, in the case of Krishna Nand Yadav & Ors. vs. Magadh University & Ors.

The Supreme Court’s 2017 order required that absorption be granted subject to the petitioners providing a declaration confirming that they had continuously worked at their colleges since their appointment. Based on this, Meera Singh was officially absorbed via a university notification on September 17, 2018.

Key Developments in the Dispute

February 27, 2019: The Supreme Court noted that Meera Singh had been absorbed and directed the authorities to clear any remaining salary arrears within four weeks.
June 3, 2020: Magadh University halted the petitioner’s pension payments.
July 11, 2019, August 7, 2019, and February 12, 2021: The Supreme Court issued multiple orders concerning salary payments but did not explicitly address pension entitlements.
January 8, 2025: The Supreme Court issued fresh directions for resolving pending salary and pension disputes.

Petitioner’s Arguments

Meera Singh’s legal team contended that:

The university authorities had failed to implement the 2017 and 2019 Supreme Court rulings.
She had worked continuously at the university, making her eligible for salary arrears and pension benefits.
Her pension was unjustly withheld without any factual inquiry.
The authorities were deliberately delaying payments despite clear judicial directives.

Respondents’ Arguments

The Bihar state government and university officials countered:

Salary payments were only made for verified workdays, and there were discrepancies regarding her actual working period.
The petitioner’s pension was stopped based on previous Supreme Court orders that disallowed salary payments for employees who had not actually worked.
Further inquiry was needed to verify her claim before processing any pending payments.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court acknowledged that the petitioner’s absorption was officially notified in 2018 and that some arrears had been paid. However, the Court noted that the university had subsequently stopped her pension without conducting a proper inquiry.

Key Observations

“The ascertainable arrears of salary have been paid, but the issue regarding the actual working period remains disputed.”
“Her pension was put on hold by the university without an inquiry, which is a matter that requires adjudication.”
“The previous orders did not explicitly address pension payments, and therefore, a fresh decision must be made.”

Final Directions by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court declined to hold contempt proceedings against the authorities but directed them to resolve the dispute through a structured fact-finding process.

Directives Issued:

The petitioner must submit her claims for salary arrears and pension to the Registrar/Vice Chancellor of the university.
The university must conduct a discrete inquiry to verify her actual working days.
The inquiry must be completed within three months, and a reasoned decision must be issued.
Her pension must be reviewed separately, without being influenced by previous orders that addressed only salary arrears.
Any excess amount paid must be quantified and recovered following due process.
If dissatisfied with the university’s decision, the petitioner can approach the High Court for further legal recourse.

Conclusion

This ruling reinforces the necessity of following proper legal procedures before stopping pension payments. The Supreme Court’s decision ensures that university employees are given a fair opportunity to claim their service benefits while also allowing authorities to conduct necessary fact-finding inquiries.

By setting a clear timeline for inquiry and resolution, the Court has provided a balanced approach to protecting the rights of employees while preventing undue financial burden on the state.

Petitioner Name: Meera Singh.
Respondent Name: Deepak Kumar & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice J.K. Maheshwari, Justice Rajesh Bindal.
Place Of Incident: Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, 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: meera-singh-vs-deepak-kumar-&-ors.-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 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