Premshila Kuer v. Dr. Amrendra Narayan Yadav & Anr.
Background
The petitioner's late husband, Ayodhya Prasad, worked as a Lab In-charge at a college and his claim for absorption into regular service was allowed by the "J. Sinha Commission" and later approved by the Supreme Court. He died in 2012, before the university formally absorbed him, so the university first fixed his absorption date as 1990 (treating the intervening period as notional duty for pension purposes) but then tried to change it to his date of death, which would have reduced the family's benefits. The petitioner alleged this amounted to contempt of the Court's earlier orders and sought payment of pending salary and family pension.
Decision Breakdown
The Court rejected the university's later attempt to shift the absorption date to the date of death and confirmed that the employee should be treated as absorbed from 12.02.1990, with his service counted notionally for retiral and pension benefits. However, it found that whether the employee had actually worked (which affects entitlement to salary/arrears) was a disputed factual question requiring an inquiry, which could not be conducted in contempt proceedings. The Court disposed of the contempt petition with directions: the petitioner must submit her claim to the university's Registrar/Vice-Chancellor, who must hold an inquiry and pass a reasoned order on salary and family pension within set time limits, independent of unrelated restrictive orders passed in a separate contempt case, with excess payments (if any) recoverable and a right of appeal to the High Court.
Lesson Learnt
Once a court-approved absorption date is fixed for a deceased employee, authorities cannot unilaterally alter it to reduce family pension entitlements; disputed factual questions about actual service, however, must go through a proper administrative inquiry rather than being resolved in contempt proceedings.