Non-compliance with court orders regarding salary adjustments constitutes civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

7 05-12-2025 1. The petitioners have filed the present contempt application for willful and deliberate defiance of the order, dated 20.08.2024, passed in CWJC No. 12272 of 2024, by the opposite party no. 5 i.e. District Education Officer, Madhubani.

2. From perusal of the order, dated 20.08.2024, giving rise to the present contempt proceedings, it is evident that this Court had taken note of the specific claim of the petitioners pertaining to the difference of salary arising out of the revision of pay scales under the 5th and 6th Pay Revisions, and also their claim for grant of benefit of 7th Pay Revision. With respect to the 7th Pay Revision, learned counsel appearing for the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board as well as the State had submitted that the same had not been implemented till date, and that in the event it is implemented in future, the petitioners shall be extended the benefit in accordance with law.

3. However, so far as the difference of salary pursuant to the revision of pay scale as per 5th and 6th Pay Revisions is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners had relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed in LPA No. 43 of 2016 dated 13.08.2019, wherein the Division Bench directed extension of the benefit of revised pay scales under the 5th and 6th Pay Revisions, together with admissible dearness allowance, to the teaching and non-teaching staff of non-government recognised (aided) Sanskrit Schools and Madrasas, in the same manner as extended to the teaching and non-teaching staff of Government Schools. Accordingly, it was submitted that the petitioners stood squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the aforesaid Division Bench judgment.

4. Accordingly, this Court granted the liberty to the petitioners to file a representation along with relevant documents before the District Education Officer, Madhubani, within a period of four weeks, and directed the said authority to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law within a period of three months thereafter, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners. It was further directed that, if upon such consideration, the claim of the petitioners was found admissible, the requisite payment was to be made within one month from the date of disposal of the representation.

5. The present contempt application has, thus, been filed alleging non-compliance of the aforesaid clear, categorical, and unambiguous directions issued by this Court. The foundational order leaves no room for doubt, discretion, or interpretational dilution, yet the same has admittedly not been complied with despite lapse of considerable time and despite sufficient opportunity having been afforded.

6. This Court vide order, dated 29.08.2025, was of the prima facie view that the order, 20.08.2024, passed by this Court has not been complied and despite admissibility of the claim of the petitioners, the requisite amount has not been paid to the petitioners in the same scale of pay as admissible to the teaching and non-teaching employees of the Govt. School within a period of one month as directed by this Court. Accordingly, this Court directed for personal appearance of the District Education Officer, Madhubani, before this Court on 26.09.2025 at 01:00 PM through virtual mode to explain the valid reasons for non-compliance of this Court’s order. 7. The District Education Officer, Madhubani, namely, Akshay Kumar Pandey, appeared through video conferencing on 10.10.2025 and submitted that some payments have been made to the petitioners, except the petitioner no. 5 due to the fact that the petitioner no. 5 has not submitted relevant documents before him. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners at that stage was that some payments have been made but not as per the revised pay scale und