/2022 INSC 0046/
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION 
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) ……………../2022
DIARY NO.13110 OF 2021
IN
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) ……………../2022
DIARY NO.21402 OF 2021
IN
SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5846 OF 2020
BIJAY KUMAR SINHA AND OTHERS       ...PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
TRIPURARI SHARAN AND OTHERS      ..RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.345 OF 2021
IN
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.652 OF 2020
IN
SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5844 OF 2020
WITH
MA NO. 875 OF 2021
IN
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.651 OF 2020
IN
SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5843 OF 2020
1

O R D E R
1. The petitioners have approached  this Court  contending
that   the   respondents   have   committed   contempt   of   the   order
dated 15 th
 February 2021 passed by this Court.
2. The present proceedings have a chequered history.  The
petitioners   were   appointed   in   various   Corporations   in   the
erstwhile   State   of   Bihar   much   prior   to   1996.     In   the   year
1996,   the   fodder   scam   resulted   in   a   large   number   of
employees   working   in   the   Treasury   Department   either   being
dismissed   or   suspended.   On   account   of   shortfall   of   the
employees in the Treasury Department, several Corporations
including   the   one,   wherein   the   petitioners   were   employed,
were   directed   by   the   Department   of   Finance,   Treasury   and
Accounts Directorate, Government of Bihar vide its letter No.
447   dated   24 th
  August   1996,   to   send   the   services   of   the
employees   on   deputation.   In   pursuance   to   the   directions
dated 24 th
 August 1996, issued by the State Government, the
2

petitioners and other employees were relieved and joined the
different   treasuries   in   the   erstwhile   State   of   Bihar.     On   15 th
November   2000,   the   State   of   Bihar   was   bifurcated   into   the
State   of   Bihar   and   the   State   of   Jharkhand.     The   employees
were accordingly apportioned amongst the two States.
3. Various   such   employees   employed   with   the   State   of
Jharkhand   had   approached   the   Jharkhand   High   Court   by
filing   writ   petition   being   WP(S)   No.1693   of   2012,   with   the
grievance   that   the   services   of   such   employees   with   the
Corporations   were   not   considered   for   the   purpose   of
pensionary   and   retiral   benefits.     The   employees   succeeded
before   the   Jharkhand   High   Court   vide   its   order   dated   31 st
July   2013.       The   LPA   No.   357   of   2013   filed   by   the   State   of
Jharkhand   before   the   Division   Bench   was   also   dismissed
vide order dated 14 th
 January 2015.  The State of Jharkhand
came up before this Court by filing Civil Appeal No.13372 of
2015.     This   Court,   vide   order   dated   7 th
  September   2017,
refused   to   interfere   with   the   order   of   the   Jharkhand   High
Court dated 14 th
 January 2015 and directed that the pension
and   retiral   benefits   as   also   the   arrears   shall   be   calculated
3

giving   the   benefit   of   the   judgment   of   the   Jharkhand   High
Court within a period of 6 months.
4. Simultaneously,   a   similar   set   of   employees   who   were
apportioned   to   the   State   of   Bihar,   were   also   pursuing   the
remedy   before   the   High   Court   of   Judicature   at   Patna.     The
proceedings reached the Division Bench of the High Court of
Patna by way of LPA No. 763 of 2017.  The Division Bench of
the   High   Court   of   Patna   passed   the   following   order   on   12 th
December 2017: 
“5.  From the aforesaid legal principles laid down by
the   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court,   it   is   clear   that   the
employees   identically   situated   like   the   appellants
herein,   who   were   working   in   various   Public   Sector
undertakings,   Boards   and   Corporations   in   the
undivided   State   of   Bihar   and   whose   cases   were
decided by the High Court of Jharkhand, have been
granted benefit and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that they are entitled to count their service prior to
their   absorption   for   the   purpose   of   retiral   benefits
and grant all pensionary benefits. 
6. That being the position, we see no reason to deny
the   same   benefit   to   these   appellants,   who   are
identically situated, like the other, who are allocated
to   State   of   Jharkhand   after   re­organization   of   the
State of Bihar in the year 2000. 
7.   In   view   of   the   aforesaid,   we   allow   all   these
appeals,   quash   the   order   dated   29.03.2017   passed
by the Writ Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7702 of 2010 and
other analogous cases and direct the State of Bihar
4

to  grant  benefit  to  each  of  the   appellants   herein   by
counting   services   as   rendered   by   them   in   the
Boards,   Corporations   and   Public   Sector
Undertakings prior to their absorption and to grant
them   the   pensionary   benefit   after   counting   such
service in the Boards or Corporations. 
8. That apart, we may  observe that this order shall
be   made   applicable   to   all   such   employees,   who   are
working in the State of Bihar. Regardless to the fact
as to whether they have filed writ application or not,
as per the Litigation Policy of the State of Bihar, this
order   shall   be   implemented,   in   the   case   of   all
identically   situated   employees,   who   claim   the
benefit by the State Government. 
9.   The   benefits   accrued   to   the   appellants   by   virtue
of   this   order   be   granted   within   a   period   of   three
months from today.”
5. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Division Bench
of   the   High   Court   of   Patna,   the   State   of   Bihar   approached
this Court by filing SLP(C) D. No.15567 of 2018.   This Court
vide its order dated 4 th
 March 2020, while dismissing the SLP
filed by the State of Bihar, observed thus: 
“We   have   also   been   informed   that   from   the
judgment   dated   07.09.2017,   a   review   petition   was
dismissed   by   this   Court   on   06.03.2018   in   which
substantially the same grounds as are taken by the
State   today   were   taken   by   the   State   of   Jharkhand
after which the review petition was rejected. 
In   the   circumstances,   we   are   of   the   view   that
the Special Leave Petitions need to be dismissed. 
Considering   that   the   respondents   have   not
been paid anything, the State of Bihar to implement
5

the   impugned   LPA   judgment   and   to   see   that   all
benefits mentioned therein are paid within a period
of six months from today. 
Pending applications stand disposed of.”
6. After   the   said   order   was   passed,   the   State   of   Bihar
issued  a Government  Resolution  dated 14 th
  September  2020
in   purported   compliance   of   the   order   passed   by   this   Court
dated 4 th
 March 2020. Contending that the State of Bihar has
not   complied   with   the   directions   issued   by   this   Court,   the
present petitioners filed a contempt petition being Contempt
Petition (C) Diary No. 21402 of 2020 before this Court.   This
Court   passed   the   following   order   in   the   said   contempt
petition on 15 th
 February 2021: 
“We   have   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the
petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing
for the State of Bihar. 
The learned counsel for the State of Bihar has
taken   us   through   the   Finance   Department
Resolution   dated   14.09.2020   in   meticulous   detail.
We   may   only   indicate   that   our   Judgment   dated
04.03.2020   has   made   it   clear   that   " the   State   of
Bihar   is   to   implement   the   aforesaid   impugned   LPA
Judgment   and   to   see   that   all   benefits   mentioned
therein are paid within six weeks ". 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
6

this   order.   This   must   be   done   without   any   further
excuses within the period aforementioned. 
In   view   of   above,   the   contempt   petitions   are
disposed of. 
Pending   interlocutory   application(s),   if   any,
is/are disposed of.”
7. Thereafter,   the   respondents   had   also   filed   an
application   for   extension   of   the   period   for   compliance   of   the
orders   passed   by   this   Court   dated   4 th
  March   2020   and   15 th
February   2021.   One   month   was   granted   by   this   Court   vide
its   order   dated   29 th
  June   2021   as   a   last   opportunity   to
comply with the directions passed by it vide its earlier orders.
8. The petitioners have now approached this Court by the
present   contempt   petition   contending   that   the   respondents
have   committed   contempt   of   this   Court   inasmuch   as   they
have   failed   to   comply   with   the   orders   passed   by   this   Court
dated 4 th
 March 2020 and 15 th
 February 2021.
9. We   have   heard   Smt.   Meenakshi   Arora,   learned   Senior
Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   petitioners   and   Shri
Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent­State of Bihar.
7

10. Shri   Ranjit   Kumar   submitted   that   as   a   matter   of   fact,
the   respondent­State   of   Bihar   has   complied   with   the
directions   issued   by   this   Court   vide   order   dated   15 th
February   2021,   inasmuch   as   the   Government   Resolution
dated   14 th
  September   2020   squarely   implements   the
directions issued by this Court.  He further submitted that it
would reveal that this Court, for the first time, has observed
“We grant the State of Bihar another three months 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”.   He   submitted   that   such   an
observation   is   not   there   in   the   order   passed   by   this   Court
dated   4 th
  March   2020   while   dismissing   the   appeals   filed   by
the State of Bihar.
11. We   do   not   find   any   merit   in   the   submissions   made   by
Shri Ranjit  Kumar.   In the  order  dated 4 th
  March 2020, this
Court   has   reproduced,   in   extenso,   the   directions   issued   by
the   High   Court   of   Patna   in   its   order   dated   12 th
  December
2017.  The said order of the High Court of Patna is very clear.
It was directed  to  State  of Bihar  to  grant benefits  to each  of
8

the   appellants   therein   by   counting   services   as   rendered   by
them   in   the   Boards,   Corporations   and   Public   Sector
Undertakings prior to their absorption and to grant them the
pensionary benefits after counting such service in the Boards
or   Corporations.     In   the   said   order   dated   04 th
  March   2020,
this   Court   has   also   noticed   that   the   review   petition   filed   by
the  State  of Jharkhand being  Review Petition (Civil) No. 459
of   2018   in   Civil   Appeal   No.   13372   of   2015   arising   from   the
order   dated   7 th
  September   2017   was   also   dismissed   by   this
Court   vide   its   order   dated   6 th
  March   2018.     Vide   the   said
order dated 7 th
 September 2017, this Court had directed that
all the benefits mentioned therein to be paid within a period
of six months from the date of the said order.
12. The   perusal   of   the   order   dated   15 th
  February   2021
would   also   reveal   that   the   contention   which   is   raised   with
regard   to   compliance   in   view   of   the   Government   Resolution
dated   14 th
  September   2020,   was   considered   by   this   Court
and this Court did not find favour with the same.  Though, it
was not necessary, we had clarified that the directions meant
payment   to   all   the   employees   exactly   what   was   paid   by   the
9

State   of   Jharkhand   to   the   employees   who   were   covered   by
the said order.
13. From   the   perusal   of   the   orders   passed   by   the   Division
Bench   of   the   High   Court   of   Patna   as   well   as   the   orders
passed   by   this  Court,   it   is   clear   that   the   State   of   Bihar   was
required to give benefit to each of the appellants by counting
services   as   rendered   by   them   in   the   Boards,   Corporations
and Public Sector Undertakings prior to their absorption and
to   grant   them   the   pensionary   benefits   after   counting   such
service   in   the   Boards   or   Corporations.     The   contention   with
regard   to   compliance   through   Government   Resolution   dated
14 th
  September 2020 has also been rejected by this Court in
its order dated 15 th
  February 2021.   It is further to be noted
that the State of Bihar itself had filed I.A. No. 62610 of 2021
for   extension   of   period   to   comply   with   the   directions   issued
by this Court dated 4 th
  March 2020 and 15 th
  February 2021.
One month’s  time was granted by  this Court  by  order  dated
29 th
 June 2021.
14. In that view of the matter, we,  prima facie , find that the
non­compliance  of  the  directions  issued  by  this  Court  dated
10

4 th
  March   2020   and   15 th
  February   2021,   is   wilful   and
deliberate and amounts to contempt of this Court.
15. We   therefore   direct   the   respondent­contemnors   to
remain present before this Court on 22 nd
  February 2022 and
show   cause   as   to   why   they   should   not   be   held   guilty   for
having committed contempt of this Court and be punished in
accordance with law.
16. Needless   to   state   that   compliance   of   the   directions,   in
the   meantime,   will   have   a   bearing   on   the   punishment   that
may be inflicted upon the respondent­contemnors.
17. All pending I.A.s are disposed of in terms of this order. 
……....….......................J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
..…....….......................J.
      [B.R. GAVAI]
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 18, 2022.
11