Contractual ITI Instructors Are Entitled to Remuneration At Par With Regular Faculty Under DGET Guidelines

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

That judgment directed the State to pay contract instructors salaries at par with regular faculty, based on a Division Bench ruling in Special Appeal No. 258 of 2012 dated 11.12.2012.

The State’s subsequent intra-court appeals and review applications were dismissed by 30.03.2020.

An appeal to the Hon’ble Apex Court was also dismissed.

During the proceedings, 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 ongoing contempt proceedings should be closed in light of the State's undertaking to release the necessary funds by the end of the month

The court applied the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, regarding the enforcement of judicial orders.

It relied on the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work as interpreted in the mandate of the Director General of Employment Training letter dated 30.12.2008, which requires that salaries of contract instructors in Industrial Training Institutes be at par with regular faculty regardless of central financial assistance.

The court adhered to Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, which restricts intra-court appeals against consent orders.

The Court evaluated the State’s progress toward compliance with the 2012 Division Bench order, which established that the State is "bound to honour the directions" of the Central Government regarding remuneration for contract faculty.

The Court noted that the State’s previous legal challenges—including a Special Appeal, Review Applications, and an appeal to the Supreme Court—had all failed, making the original order final.

The Court accepted the State’s categorical instruction that "special fund has been allotted" and "budget will be released by the end of this month".

Based on this statement, the Court reasoned that the judgment has been "substantially complied with," rendering the continuation of the contempt proceedings unnecessary at this stage.

The Court ordered that the proceedings be dropped but granted the petitioner liberty to approach the Court again if final compliance (disbursement of funds) is not realized.