Contempt proceedings emphasize the right to a fair hearing, necessitating that authorities provide opportunity for representation and consideration of claims in compliance with court directives.

JUDGMENT

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. The present batch of four contempt petitions has been instituted by the contempt petitioners [Hereinafter, referred to as the “petitioners”] alleging non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 16th July, 2024, passed in SLP (C) No. 14355 of 2021 and SLP (C) No. 2809 of 2021, titled as The State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Anirban Ghosh and Ors., preferred by the State of West Bengal assailing the judgment and order dated 3rd September, 2020, rendered by the High Court at Calcutta [Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”.] in MAT No. 1221 of 2019.

3. In support of the allegations so raised, the petitioners primarily relied upon the following observations made by this Court in the order dated 16th July, 2024: -

“2. Having regard to the fact that the impugned judgment was passed on 03rd September, 2020 and the same has remained stayed in terms of the order passed by this Court on 20th September, 2021 in SLP (Civil) No. 14355/2021 and on 29th October, 2021 in SLP (Civil) No. 2809/2021, it is deemed appropriate to direct the State Government of West Bengal to make compliances of the impugned judgment within a period of three months from today. The relief granted in the said judgment shall also be extended to all similarly placed private respondents including the intervenors/impleaders who have moved applications in the present petitions. ” [Emphasis supplied]

4. The petitioners allege that despite specific directions issued by this Court, the relief granted by the High Court and subsequently affirmed by this Court, has not been extended to them, thereby rendering the respondent-contemnors in breach of the judgment of this Court.

5. It was submitted that, in terms of the order passed by the High Court, the State Government was obligated to disburse salary equivalent to the basic pay in the scale applicable to a regular teacher working in the higher secondary section of a Non- Government aided higher secondary school, for the period commencing from 28th July, 2010 till 24th December, 2013, within a period of four weeks. A further direction was issued requiring the part-time contractual teachers to submit representations before the Secretary, School Education Department, justifying their claim, if any, to basic pay for the period from April, 2007 to December, 2009 and for the period subsequent to 24th December, 2013.

6. A common reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent-contemnors, wherein it has been asserted that no willful breach of the order passed by this Court dated 16th July, 2024, or of the judgment dated 3rd September, 2020, rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court, has been committed by them. The respondent-contemnors have pleaded that the arrears/dues payable to the petitioners for the period from 28th July, 2010 to 24th December, 2013, stand duly disbursed.

7. Learned senior counsel representing the petitioners vehemently and fervently contended that the payments to which the petitioners are entitled under the judgment of this Court have not been effected/made. They submitted that the following specific directions were issued by the Division Bench of the High Court in the order dated 3rd September, 2020, none of which, according to the petitioners, have been complied with: -

“Under such circumstances, we modify the order of the learned Single Judge by directing the appellant to make payment of salaries equal to basic pay in the scale of pay of a regular teacher. working in Higher Secondary Section in a Non- Government Ai