In Bihar State Ardh Sarkari Arajpati Karamchari Maha Sangh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2026 INSC 607), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta delivered a 29-page long judgement dated May 29, 2026, wherein, it concluded: “The material placed before this Court revealed that the prolonged non-payment of lawful dues resulted in grave humanitarian consequences affecting a large section of the workforce and their dependants. The proceedings disclosed allegations of severe deprivation, destitution and reported instances of suicides and starvation deaths amongst the affected employees and their family members owing to prolonged denial of salaries and retiral benefits. The dispute, therefore, ceased to remain a mere matter of financial adjustment between two successor States and assumed the character of a significant human rights and constitutional concern directly implicating the right to livelihood and dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India”.
The Court had dealt with a similar issue in Kapila Hingorani vs. State of Bihar (2003) 6 SCC 1, wherein, it directed Rs 125 crores as interim relief but it proved insufficient to clear arrears beyond February 1997. Bihar State Ardh Sarkari Arajpati Karamchari Maha Sangh filed the writ petition in 2022. By Court's order dated October 9, 2023, it directed Bihar, Jharkhand and union governments arrive at a joint solution. As no solution was found. The Court constituted a Committee under Justice Dinesh Maheshwari (Retd.). The Committee conducted 25 meetings and submitted its final report on April 30, 2026.
The Court had given the points of reference for consideration and enquiry by the Committee:-
I. Fixation of the proportional liabilities of both the States i.e., State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand, towards the salaries and other emoluments including retiral benefits of the employees of the erstwhile corporations, whether dissolved or existing.
II. Identification of the employees/family members of the deceased employees including a finding on the service tenure(s) of the employee(s) concerned and the duration for which they have been deprived of their lawful dues.
III. The entitlement of the erstwhile employees to receive salary and/or retiral benefits as per the extant statutes or rules.
IV. Any other matter relevant to the controversy.
The Court received two interim reports dated August 6, 2025 and November 25, 2025 submitted by the Committee.
The Court expressed its agreement with the findings, recommendations and suggestions made by the Committee, together with the consequential directions required to be issued for effective implementation. It enumerated them as under:-
i. The apportionment and fixation of the inter se liability of the respective States towards payment of salaries, retiral dues and other consequential emoluments payable to the employees of the erstwhile corporations shall stand resolved in terms of the allocation and computation determined by the Committee in paragraph No. 8.2 of the Final Report, namely, on the basis of the Affidavit dated 22nd26 December, 2023 furnished on behalf of the Union of India, which shall govern the respective liabilities of both the States. The concerned States shall remain bound to discharge their respective liabilities accordingly, if already not discharged.
ii. The determination of the applicable Pay Revision Commission shall stand confined to the Pay Revision Commission(s) duly adopted by the concerned Corporations prior to their becoming defunct, and consequently, no entitlement shall accrue in favour of the employees towards benefits arising from any subsequent Pay Revision Commissions which were never formally adopted by the competent authorities of the respective Corporations.
iii. The determination, computation and disbursal of dues payable towards Employees’ Provident Fund contributions and allied statutory benefits shall be undertaken in accordance with the structured mechanism recommended by the Committee and noted hereinabove, and the concerned authorities shall ensure expeditious and effective disbursal of the admissible amounts to the eligible employees and/or their legal heirs in accordance therewith.
The judgement reads: "38. Notwithstanding the substantial resolution of the disputes in terms of the findings and recommendations accepted hereinabove, following residual issues still survive which, in our considered view, require independent judicial consideration and adjudication by this Court having regard to the nature of the claims involved and the legal consequences flowing therefrom:-
i. The identification and verification of the remaining employees/workmen and/or the legal heirs of deceased employees/workmen in cases where claims are yet to attain finality;
ii. The entitlement of the daily-wage workmen, as also the legal heirs of deceased employees/workmen, to lump-sum compensation and/or any other form of monetary, rehabilitative or welfare support including payment of due wages and other consequential admissible benefits; and iii. The entitlement to, and determination of, appropriate interest on delayed payment of salaries/wages, retiral dues, provident fund amounts and other consequential emoluments."
The court directed that "an additional honorarium of Rs. 35,00,000/- (Thirty-Five Lakhs only) shall be paid to Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Judge (Retd.), Supreme Court of India." The amount shall be borne equally by the States of Bihar and Jharkhand and disbursed within a specified period.
Earlier, the Court had passed judgement dated May 9, 2003, judgement dated January 13, 2005 and judgement dated July 8, 2008. In its 2003 judgement in Kapila Hingorani case, it was recorded:"A newspaper report as regard non-payment of salary for a long time resulting in starvation highlighted the case of one Chandan Bhattacharya, son of an employee of the Bihar State Agro-Industries Development Corporation who tried to immolate himself. The incident was widely reported, inter alia, in ’The Hindustan Times’, Delhi Edition, on 19.9.2002 under the caption "Empty coffers drive staff to self-immolation bids". The said Chandan Bhattacharya later on succumbed to the burn injuries suffered by him. In this writ petition, the writ petitioner, a public spirited citizen and a Supreme Court lawyer, alleged that apart from plight of the employees of the public sector undertakings or the statutory authorities, even the teaching and non-teaching staff of Aided and Unaided Schools, Madrassas and Colleges have been facing a similar fate. We, however, as at present advised do not intend to deal with the same. According to the petitioner, from a newspaper report it would appear that about 250 employees died due to starvation or committed suicide owing to acute financial crisis resulting from non-payment of remunerations to them for a long time. The report further goes on to say that the leader of the opposition in the Bihar Assembly had alleged that over 1000 employees died "due to lack of salary for a period ranging from four months to 94 months". In its counter affidavit, the State of Bihar does not deny about the factual statement made in the said writ petition...."
Subsequently, a 3-Judge Bench of the Court had passed an order dated August 9, 2010, wherein, it had concluded:"The issues involved in these cases basically are legal issues. They will have to be gone into by the concerned High Courts. This Court has so far monitored the matter to its best possible ability. In the circumstances, we request the High Court to examine these matters in the PIL and pass appropriate orders in these PILs as expeditiously as possible. The Registry is directed to forward copy of this order to the Registrar General of the High Court. The attention of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court may be drawn to this Order. We request the High Court to consider the orders passed by this Court giving appropriate directions from time to time in these cases. We also direct the High Court to consider making interim payments to the affected persons including medical treatment. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. In view of the order passed in the writ petition, no orders are required to be passed on the interlocutory applications." It is not clear as to what was done by the High Court in this regard.
No comments:
Post a Comment