Court declined to continue contempt proceedings while an application to vacate the interim stay remained pending.

The petitioners were contractual Data Entry Operators at Rajmata Smt. Devendra Kumari Singh Dev Government Medical College, Ambikapur, appointed in 2020 and periodically granted extensions. Their contractual engagement was extended by order dated 2 April 2025 up to 31 March 2026, but the extension was cancelled on 3 April 2025 on the ground that requisite government funds had not been received.

In WPS No. 2617 of 2025, the Coordinate Bench stayed the cancellation order on 21 April 2025. Alleging that the respondents had neither continued them in service nor paid their salaries despite the interim order, the petitioners initiated contempt proceedings under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Article 215 of the Constitution.

Whether the respondents’ alleged failure to continue the petitioners in service and pay their salaries, despite the interim order dated 21 April 2025 in WPS No. 2617 of 2025, warranted initiation or continuation of contempt proceedings.

Whether the contempt petition should be kept pending when the respondents’ application for vacation of the interim order was pending before the Coordinate Bench.

The petition was founded on Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which provides for punishment for contempt of court, read with Article 215 of the Constitution, which recognises the High Court’s power to punish for contempt of itself.

The relevant governing principle was that contempt jurisdiction should be exercised in the context of an alleged non-compliance with a subsisting court order; where the underlying interim order is subject to a pending application for vacation or modification before the competent Coordinate Bench, the contempt court may decline to continue the proceedings at that stage.

The Court noted the petitioners’ allegation that the respondents had not complied with the interim stay order by restoring their engagement and releasing their salaries.

However, the respondents disputed the basis for continuation of the contractual appointments, asserting that the petitioners were not appointed against sanctioned posts and that continuation depended upon government funding. More importantly, the respondents had already moved the Coordinate Bench seeking vacation of the interim order. Since the continuation and effect of that interim order were directly in issue before the Coordinate Bench, the Court considered it inappropriate to keep the contempt petition pending while that application remained undecided.

The rule issued against the respondents was discharged and the contempt proceedings were dropped.