The Supreme Court disposed of contempt petitions filed by part-time contractual teachers against West Bengal, directing the School Education Secretary to reconsider unpaid salary arrears after granting them a fair hearing, citing earlier directions for pay parity compliance issues.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has disposed of a series of contempt petitions filed by part time contractual teachers against the State of West Bengal, directing the Secretary of the School Education Department to reconsider their pending claims for unpaid salary arrears after giving them a proper hearing.
The order was issued by a Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, in connection with allegations that the State had failed to comply with earlier Supreme Court directions to pay salaries equivalent to those of regular teachers.
Background of the Case
In 2002, the Government of West Bengal introduced part time contractual teaching posts in Higher Secondary schools to deal with shortages of teachers. These posts carried a fixed monthly honorarium of Rs 2,000 at the outset and were subject to yearly renewal. Over time, although the remuneration was revised, the teachers continued to remain on contractual terms.
In 2010, the State issued orders allowing such part-time teachers to serve up to the age of 60 and extended certain service benefits such as medical and casual leave, provided they handled the same workload as regular teachers.
Despite this, the School Education Department later declined their request for equal pay and refused to regularise their services, while also withdrawing earlier benefits. This prompted the affected teachers, including Anirban Ghosh, to approach the Calcutta High Court.
Proceeding before the High Court:
The High Court observed that these part time teachers had been performing duties identical to those of regular teachers and were therefore entitled to basic pay on par with regular faculty for the period during which such equivalent work was taken from them.
The Court modified an earlier order and directed the State to grant pay parity with regular teachers for the period between 28 July 2010 and 24 December 2013, when Government Orders had effectively placed their duties and responsibilities on the same footing as full time staff.
However, the Court made it clear that this judgment was limited to salary parity and did not mandate regularisation of their contractual appointments.
Proceeding before the Supreme Court:
These contempt proceedings arose from the alleged breach of the Supreme Court’s order dated July 16, 2024, in The State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Anirban Ghosh and Ors., which reaffirmed compliance with the Calcutta High Court judgment dated September 3, 2020.
Also Read: [Illegal Teacher Termination Case] Supreme Court Issues Notice to Tripura Government
Arguments of Parties:
The petitioners’ counsel argued that the State failed to clear their dues for the full duration of service and that although representations were submitted, “no opportunity of hearing was ever afforded to them.” They further asserted that “relevant records were not summoned from the concerned school authorities,” thereby preventing a fair assessment of their claims.
They relied on the High Court’s direction which explicitly stated that the Secretary “shall consider such representation… upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners as well as concerned schools.”
Meanwhile, the respondent contemnors maintained that there was “no willful breach” of the Court’s directions and contended that the arrears for the period between July 28, 2010 and December 24, 2013 “stand duly disbursed.”
Findings of the Court
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the State, admitted procedural shortcomings.
The Court recorded:
“Learned senior counsel, Shri Kapil Sibal, fairly conceded that the petitioners were not granted an opportunity of hearing in terms of the directions issued by the High Court, as expanded by this Court, nor were the records of the concerned schools called for while deciding their representations.”
The Supreme Court concluded the contempt proceedings with the following directions:
- 1) The petitioners are permitted to file a fresh representation before the Secretary, School Education Department, within six weeks, detailing their “entire grievances/claims/entitlements in terms of the order passed by the High Court.”
- 2) The Secretary must ensure that the petitioners are given a proper hearing, either personally or through legal representation, as the Court directed that the authority “shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in representative capacity either in person or through a legal advisor/advocate.”
- 3) Before the hearing, all relevant school records must be requisitioned and made available, as the Court mandated that “corresponding records pertaining to the engagement of the petitioners shall be summoned from the respective schools prior to proceeding with the hearing and the parties shall be permitted to inspect the same.”
- 4) A detailed and reasoned decision must be issued within four months.
The Court further clarified that if any adverse order is passed, the petitioners will remain free to pursue appropriate legal remedies.
Case Title: Gurupada Bera & Ors. v. Binod Kumar & Ors
Read Attachment: