2002 (3) TMI 950 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to pay scale equivalent to Physical Instructors.
2. Redesignation and its implications.
3. Discrimination between government and non-government college staff.
4. Compliance with court orders.
5. Contempt of court proceedings.

Summary:

1. Entitlement to Pay Scale Equivalent to Physical Instructors:
The principal issue revolves around the entitlement of the petitioners to the pay scale equivalent to that of Physical Instructors, specifically Rs. 700-1600 as of 2nd July 1984 and Rs. 2200-4000 w.e.f. 1986. The petitioners, who are Science Graduates appointed as Laboratory Assistants, argued that they were treated as teaching staff until a government order in 1969 reclassified them as non-teaching staff, adversely affecting their Dearness Allowances.

2. Redesignation and Its Implications:
In August 1983, the State Government redesignated Laboratory Assistants as Laboratory Instructors without conferring any material benefits or teaching status. The court found this change of nomenclature meaningless and criticized it as a "mischievous deception" and a "hoax."

3. Discrimination Between Government and Non-Government College Staff:
Graduate Laboratory Assistants in government colleges were given the status and pay scale of Demonstrators, whereas those in non-government colleges were discriminated against despite having similar qualifications and experience. The court noted that this discrimination was arbitrary and unjustified.

4. Compliance with Court Orders:
The petitioners had previously succeeded in obtaining a writ of Mandamus from the Calcutta High Court, directing the State to treat them as teaching staff and pay them accordingly. This order was upheld by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court, which modified the date of entitlement to 1st August 1987. Despite this, the State issued a circular in 1994 that did not fully comply with the court's orders, leading to further litigation.

5. Contempt of Court Proceedings:
The petitioners moved for contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, arguing that the State's actions were willful and deliberate violations of court orders. The court emphasized that mere disobedience does not constitute "civil contempt" unless it is willful. The court found the State's defense of "understanding" the orders to be a sham and held the respondents in contempt, directing their presence for further orders.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found that the State of West Bengal had willfully and deliberately violated its orders by not granting the petitioners the pay scale and status they were entitled to. The court directed the respondents to be present for further orders, emphasizing the importance of compliance with judicial orders for the proper administration of justice.