ORDER : 1. The petitioners in the present contempt petition are aggrieved by the alleged non-compliance of the order dated 31.08.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017 and batch titled as "Krishna Nand Yadav & others Vs. Magadh University & others". 2. Briefly put, the petitioners herein were appointed on class III and class IV non-teaching posts in S.S.J.S. Namdhari College, Garwha, Nilamber Pitamber University. By orders dated 04.12.2015, claims of the petitioners nos. 1 to 24 and 26 to 29 regarding absorption and payment of arrears of salary were allowed by Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) 'One Man Commission' (hereinafter referred to as 'J. Sinha Commission'). The said orders were confirmed by this Court vide order dated 31.08.2017 in Krishna Nand Yadav (supra), subject to furnishing declaration by the respective petitioners with regard to their continuous working and attending the college regularly since the date of appointment till date, or in case of retirement till the date of retirement and that they did not work anywhere else. 3. The petitioners submit that while they have been absorbed by the university vide notification dated 26.07.2018 with effect from 01.12.2008, they should have been absorbed from the date of their respective appointments and arrears of salary ought to be paid by the contemnors, therefore, the present petition has been filed. 4. The State of Jharkhand in its counter affidavit firstly said that petitioner no. 25 (Janeshwar Dubey) has no locus standi to file this contempt petition as his claim for absorption and arrears was rejected by J. Sinha Commission. Secondly, this contempt is not maintainable in respect of remaining petitioners as well, because they do not satisfy the condition stipulated in para 23 of the order dated 31.08.2017 in Krishna Nand Yadav (supra). It was submitted that while the petitioners in their declaration affidavits claimed to have been working continuously from the date of their initial appointments, but the university vide letter dated 02.02.2018 informed that no record with respect to their continuous working is found by Registrar. The University did not issue continuity certificates. Nonetheless, they were absorbed by the university with effect from the year 2008. 5. The University did not issue continuity certificates. Nonetheless, they were absorbed by the university with effect from the year 2008. 5. The learned counsel for the State submitted that when this was brought to the notice of this Court, direction was issued vide order dated 24.09.2018 in Contempt Petition (C) No. 832 of 2018 and connected matters, vide which the State was directed to decide this issue. In compliance of the said direction, the State conducted a detailed enquiry wherein vide order dated 07.12.2018 it was found that none of the 28 petitioners were either discharging their duties regularly or receiving regular salary. State did not enquire with respect to petitioner no. 25 pleading the rejection of his claim by J. Sinha Commission. 6. The learned counsel for the State further submitted that apart from this, another enquiry was done in compliance of orders dated 11.07.2019 and 07.08.2019 passed in Contempt Petition (C) No. 1188 of 2018 titled as "Baidya Nath Choudhary Vs. Dr. Sree Surendra Kumar Singh and connected matters" wherein on scrutiny of the attendance register and other records, no evidence of continuous working could be found. In some cases, the records were highly doubtful and suspicious due to irregular markings. Hence, it is submitted that no case of willful non-compliance can be made out. 7. We have heard the counsel and perused the documents on record. We will first deal with the issue of maintainability of this contempt petition with respect to petitioner no. 25. Indisputably, the claim of petitioner no. 25 was rejected by J. Sinha Commission. The relevant part is reproduced as below: - "It is, however, stated thar Shri Janeshwar Dubey has sought for his appointment on compassionate grounds. If that be so, he need not be absorbed in the University services, as no such order can be passed by this Commission, having regard to its limited jurisdiction." From a perusal of the above, it is clear that the claim of petitioner no. 25 was limited to appoint him on compassionate ground, therefore, no order for his absorption was passed by J. Sinha Commission. The documents indicate that even then, Nilamber Pitamber University on 26.07.2018 had ordered his absorption along with other 28 other petitioners herein. In this regard, no explanation has been placed before us by the parties. 25 was limited to appoint him on compassionate ground, therefore, no order for his absorption was passed by J. Sinha Commission. The documents indicate that even then, Nilamber Pitamber University on 26.07.2018 had ordered his absorption along with other 28 other petitioners herein. In this regard, no explanation has been placed before us by the parties. In light of such facts and the counter affidavit of the State, we find that this is not a case of willful non-compliance of the order 31.08.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017 and batch titled as "Krishna Nand Yadav & others (supra)". We further hold that the claim of petitioner no. 25 falls outside the scope of this contempt petition. Hence, he has no locus standi to file this contempt petition. Thus, contempt petition stands dismissed for petitioner no. 25. However, dismissal of this contempt petition may not have any adverse impact on him to take any recourse as permissible within the law. 8. Now to deal with the cases of remaining 28 petitioners, looking to the factual scenario and counter affidavit of the State and the tenor of the orders dated 11.07.2019, 07.08.2019 and 12.02.2021 passed in subsequent proceedings in Contempt Petition (C) No. 1188 of 2018 Baidya Nath Choudhary (supra), we find that the issues regarding actual working of the individual petitioner, payment of salary and arrears thereof require adjudication after a fact-finding enquiry, which we are not inclined to decide in this Contempt Petition. 9. As per above discussions, in our view, it would be appropriate to direct the authorities to adjudicate all the said issues through Registrar/Vice Chancellor in view of the judgment of State of Bihar & others vs Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K.M & others (2005) 9 SCC 129 and accordingly, we dispose of this contempt petition for petitioner nos. 1 to 24 and 26 to 29 with the following directions: (i) The individual petitioner shall submit his claim along with relevant documents setting up his actual working in college in terms of the orders of absorption, claiming salary, and also pension (including family pension), if any, from the date of absorption within two months from the date of passing of this order before the Registrar/Vice Chancellor of the University. (ii) On receiving the claim of salary, a discrete enquiry be held affording due opportunity to the employee, college concerned and the representative of the State if required, and a reasoned order be passed regarding payment of salary and arrears, if any, within a period of three months thereafter. (iii) The claim regarding pension, if any, of petitioner which has been withheld be decided counting the period of service, w.e.f. date of absorption notionally uninfluenced by the orders dated 11.07.2019, 07.08.2019 and 12.02.2021 passed in Contempt Petition (C) No. 1188 of 2018 "Baidya Nath Choudhary (supra)". (iv) After adjudicating the issue of pension and arrears, the same be paid adjusting the amount already paid as expeditiously as possible not later than two months from the date of such order. (v) Upon adjudication, if it is found that any excess amount has been paid either in the head of salary or pension, it be quantified and the university/college/state as the case may be, shall be at liberty to take recourse to recover the same following the procedure as prescribed. (vi) We make it clear that if the employees have submitted the joint claim of arrears of salary and pension in that event the issue of arrears of salary be governed by direction No. (ii) and of pension by direction (iii). (vii) In case, the parties feel dissatisfied by the orders of the Registrar/Vice Chancellor of the University, they shall be at liberty to take recourse as permissible before the High Court. 10. In view of the foregoing, the present contempt petition for petitioner nos. 1 to 24 and 26 to 29 stands disposed of. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.