9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Contempt of Court for disobeying the order dated 2.6.1988. 2. Entitlement of instructors to the same pay scale as squad teachers. 3. Financial burden and liability of the State of Haryana and Union of India. 4. Willful disobedience and the standard of proof for contempt. Summary: 1. Contempt of Court for disobeying the order dated 2.6.1988: The petitions were filed for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents for disobeying the Supreme Court's order dated 2.6.1988 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 597 of 1986. The petitioners alleged that the respondents failed to pay the arrears of salary to the instructors as directed by the Court. 2. Entitlement of instructors to the same pay scale as squad teachers: The petitioners, working as instructors under the Adult and Non-formal Education Scheme, claimed they were entitled to the same pay scales as squad teachers under the State Social Education Scheme. The Supreme Court upheld this claim, stating that both instructors and squad teachers were employees of the same employer performing similar duties, invoking the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" as per Article 39(d) of the Constitution. The Court directed that instructors be given the same pay scale as squad teachers from the date of their initial appointment. 3. Financial burden and liability of the State of Haryana and Union of India: The State of Haryana argued that the financial burden created by the Court's direction amounted to about 28 crores of rupees. The State sought a contribution from the Union of India to bear part of this burden. The Court noted that the Union of India was not initially a party to the writ petition and was added later as a proforma respondent. The Court acknowledged the State's difficulty in arranging funds and noted that about 20 crores had already been paid to the instructors. 4. Willful disobedience and the standard of proof for contempt: The Court emphasized that for contempt to be established, there must be "willful disobedience" to its orders. The Court must be satisfied that the disobedience was intentional and not due to compelling circumstances. In this case, the Court found no willful disobedience on the part of the respondents. The Court noted that the financial burden created by its direction was not anticipated and that significant payments had already been made. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, concluding that the respondents had not committed contempt. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the contempt petitions, finding no willful disobedience by the respondents in complying with its earlier direction to pay instructors the same pay scale as squad teachers. The Court recognized the financial burden on the State of Haryana and noted the substantial payments already made to the instructors.
|
