The legal principle established is that the treatment of an order as a precedent depends on the fact situation and the special features of the case.

ORDER :

Arijit Pasayat and L.S. Panta, JJ.

It is brought to our notice by Mr Gopal Subramanium, learned Additional Solicitor General that by order communicated by Letter dated 19-8-2006, salary of doctors of AIIMS and other Government hospitals for the period from 14-5-2006 to 30-5-2006 has been sanctioned and they shall be immediately paid the amounts due.

2. We find from the communication signed by one Mr U.C. Nangia, Deputy Secretary to the Government of India that "this shall not be quoted as a precedent in any case in future". We failed to understand the logic on this insertion in the order. In none of the orders passed by this Court, has it been stated that the order regarding payment is not to be treated as a precedent.

3. Whether an order can be treated as a precedent would depend upon the fact situation. In fact, we have stated that though the normal rule of "no work no pay" could have, in law, been applied, in view of the special features of the case, we had directed payment.

4. It was because of the assurance held out by the Government that there shall be no deduction of salary in case the doctors resumed duty. The order was passed on 17-7-2006, Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India, 2011 (12) SCC 791. No explanation has been offered as to why there was a delay of more than one month for complying with the order and why filing of a contempt petition was necessitated so that compliance can be made. Let an affidavit be filed within two weeks indicating as to who are the persons responsible for the delay and the causes for it and what action has been taken or is proposed to be taken against the persons concerned.

5. Call the matter after two weeks. The contempt proceedings (IA No. 9) are closed. But the report shall be filed in the main case so that further orders, if necessary, shall be passed.