Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | – 0 |
| Diary Number | 18826/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Both judges concurred |
| Precedent Value | Clarifies procedural enforcement under inherent jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Procedural law (inherent jurisdiction / contempt) |
| Questions of Law | Whether non-compliance of hearing and record-summons directions warrants fresh representation under inherent jurisdiction |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that where its directions—including granting of hearings and summons of relevant records—had not been complied with, petitioners are entitled to file a fresh representation. The Secretary, School Education Department must summon the engagement records from the concerned schools, afford the petitioners an opportunity of hearing (in person or through counsel), and pass a reasoned order within four months. Adverse orders remain open to challenge in accordance with law. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | None specified |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court proceeded on the concession that no hearing was granted and no records were summoned as directed; it invoked its inherent jurisdiction in civil contempt to enforce procedural mandates of earlier orders. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioners are part-time contractual teachers who, pursuant to a High Court order dated 3 September 2020, were to receive basic pay arrears for 28 July 2010–24 December 2013 and to submit representations for other periods. A subsequent Supreme Court order of 16 July 2024 directed state compliance within three months; petitioners alleged non-compliance in contempt petitions; respondents admitted that hearings and record-summons were not conducted. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Secretary, School Education Department and similar state authorities |
| Persuasive For | High Courts and subordinate courts in dealing with procedural enforcement in contempt matters |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Court reaffirmed that failure to grant the mandated hearing and summon relevant records constitutes non-compliance warranting relief in contempt proceedings.
- Petitioners are granted six weeks to file fresh representations specifying their complete claims, ensuring procedural fairness.
- Authorities must summon school engagement records and afford in-person or counsel-led hearings before passing reasoned orders.
- Detailed reasoned orders must be issued within four months, with adverse decisions remaining challengeable.
- This decision underscores the utility of inherent jurisdiction to enforce compliance with procedural mandates of earlier judgments.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Petitioners filed contempt petitions alleging non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s 16 July 2024 order (extending a 3 September 2020 High Court directions on salary arrears and representations).
- Respondents admitted they had not granted hearings nor summoned school records as directed.
- The Court, invoking its inherent jurisdiction, held that procedural directions are mandatory and non-compliance must be remedied.
- It granted petitioners six weeks to submit fresh representations and directed the Secretary to summon records before a hearing.
- It mandated a detailed, reasoned order within four months, preserving the right to challenge any adverse findings.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners
- No opportunity of hearing was afforded as per the High Court and Supreme Court directions.
- Relevant school records were not summoned before deciding representations.
- Salary arrears and related entitlements remain unpaid for the full duration of service.
Respondent-Contemnors
- Asserted that due payments for 28 July 2010–24 December 2013 have been disbursed.
- Maintained that adequate opportunity was provided and that non-compliance allegations were misconceived.
Factual Background
Part-time contractual teachers petitioned the Calcutta High Court for salary arrears equivalent to basic pay from 28 July 2010 to 24 December 2013, and for representations covering April 2007–December 2009 and post-December 2013. The High Court directed payments within four weeks and hearings on additional claims. The Supreme Court stayed the High Court order but on 16 July 2024 directed state compliance and extension to similarly placed petitioners. Four petitioners filed contempt proceedings alleging no hearings or record summons, and partial or non-payment of arrears.
Statutory Analysis
No specific statutory provisions were analyzed; the judgment rests on the Supreme Court’s inherent jurisdiction to enforce compliance with its procedural directions as part of civil contempt jurisdiction.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
None—both members of the bench concurred in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- Established a timeline: six weeks for fresh representations; four months for reasoned orders.
- Clarified that contempt jurisdiction can be used proactively to enforce procedural directions.
- Mandated summoning of relevant records and formal hearings in contempt enforcement.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision reaffirms existing procedural mandates under the Supreme Court’s inherent jurisdiction in civil contempt matters.