Contractual ITI Instructors are Entitled to Remuneration at Par With Regular Faculty

The petitioner filed a contempt petition under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging non-compliance with a judgment dated 10.10.2018 passed in Pankaj Negi vs. State of Uttarakhand (WPSS No. 2271 of 2018)

The initial judgment directed the State to pay contract instructors at Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) salaries at par with regular faculty, following a mandate from the Director General of Employment Training dated 30.12.2008

The State’s subsequent Special Appeals and Review Applications were dismissed by the Division Bench and the Hon’ble Apex Court respectively

During the hearing, the State counsel informed the Court that a special fund has been allotted and the budget for the arrears would be released by the end of May 2026

1. Whether the respondents committed civil contempt by failing to comply with the directions regarding the payment of remuneration to contract instructors at par with regular faculty

2. Whether the proceedings of the contempt petition should be closed based on the State’s undertaking to release the necessary budget for disbursement

The Court applied the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, specifically regarding the enforcement of judicial orders

It relied on the principle of Pay Parity as established in the Division Bench judgment in Special Appeal No. 258 of 2012, which held that the State is bound by the Central Government's directions (dated 30.12.2008) to ensure contract faculty remuneration matches regular faculty to maintain ITI affiliation

Furthermore, the court adhered to procedural finality, noting that once a judgment is upheld by the Supreme Court, it must be implemented "as per law"

The Court examined the State's compliance status following the dismissal of all legal challenges in the Special Appeal and the Supreme Court. The primary contention of the State—that it was not bound by central directions due to lack of financial assistance—had already been rejected by the Division Bench, which ruled that maintaining affiliation necessitates compliance with remuneration standards

Given the State's categorical statement in court that funds have now been allotted and the budget is scheduled for release by month-end, the Court reasoned that the judgment has been "substantially complied with"

The Court determined that continuing the contempt proceedings would serve "no useful purpose" provided the State fulfills its immediate commitment to disburse the funds

The Court directed that the budget be released by the end of May 2026 with subsequent disbursement to the petitioners. However, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the Court again if further compliance is not met