A contempt application is deemed satisfied and disposed of when the state authority issues a subsequent order that aligns with the original judicial directions regarding the fixation of pay-scales.

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. K.B.Pujara for the applicant and learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Mitesh Amin with learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Kanva Antani for respondent No.1 and learned advocate Mr. Manish J. Patel for respondent No.4.

2. This Court passed the following order on 10.02.2025:

“1. The draft amendment is allowed in terms of the draft. Same shall be carried out forthwith.

2. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Pujara appearing for the applicants has submitted that the respondent authorities, including the State Government as well as District Primary Education Officers have not fixed and paid the higher pay-scale to the applicants as Trained Teachers, as directed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 30.09.2016 passed in the captioned writ petition. It is submitted by Mr.Pujara that the State Government had issued an order dated 13.09.2023 in compliance with the directions issued by this Court and to extend the benefit of the Trained Teachers to the present applicants. However, they are ultimately extended the benefit of Untrained Teachers.

3. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr.Amin appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has submitted that as per the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, more particularly in paragraph No.7(c), the applicants – original petitioners are extended the benefit of higher pay-scale, after calculating their service as directed in the order of Director of Primary Education dated 30.03.2007 read with Government Resolution dated 16.04.1998. He has submitted that an entry in this regard was also made in the service-book of the respective petitioners.

4. It is also submitted by learned Additional Advocate General Mr.Amin that the present contempt application is not maintainable as the same is filed seeking compliance of the order which has been passed on 30.09.2016.

5. We may at the first instance deal with the maintainability of the present application. The facts which are established from the record are that on 30.09.2016, learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition directed the respondents to grant higher pay-scale to them as Trained Teachers as they have completed 25 years of service. A further direction was issued with regard to the prayer in terms of 14(b) that such higher pay-scale has been granted to similarly situated other teachers in accordance with the order dated 30.03.2007 issued by the Director of Primary Education read with Government Resolution dated 16.04.1998. It is not in dispute that similarly situated persons to the present applicants thereafter had filed a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.5527 of 2017 and similar directions were issued by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 23.01.2018. It appears that thereafter Misc. Civil Application (for contempt) No.1404 of 2018 was filed by the similarly situated persons before the Division Bench and by the order dated 02.12.2021, the Coordinate Bench had taken a strict view and the matter was adjourned on 16.12.2021. On 19.01.2022, the Coordinate Bench, in the said Misc. Civil Application No.1404 of 2018, noticed the action taken by the respondents by treating them as Untrained Teachers and further direction was issued to release the amount in favour of such petitioners who were similarly situated to the present applicants. Ultimately, it appears that the said petitioners, who are similarly situated to the present applicants, have been granted the higher pay-scale of Trained Teachers.

6. It appears that during the pendency of such proceedings, the Education Department of State Government issued Resolution dated 13.