State’s obligation to pay contract faculty at par with regular faculty survives despite lack of Central financial assistance.

The petitioners filed contempt petitions under the Contempt of Courts Act against the respondents for non-compliance with a judgment dated 10.10.2018 passed in Pankaj Negi v. State of Uttarakhand

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

The State’s subsequent Special Appeals and review applications were dismissed by the High Court

a further appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court was also dismissed

During the pendency of these contempt proceedings, the State counsel informed the Court that a special fund has been allotted to fulfill the payment obligations

Whether the respondents’ failure to pay the difference in remuneration as per the 2012 Division Bench directions constitutes actionable contempt necessitating the continuation of proceedings

The court applied the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, focusing on the enforcement of judicial orders and the principle of substantial compliance.

the State is bound by the Central Government’s mandate (letter dated 30.12.2008) to ensure contract instructors' salaries are at par with regular faculty, regardless of whether the State receives specific financial assistance for such remuneration

The Court examined the procedural history, noting that the State had exhausted all legal remedies, including review petitions and an appeal to the Apex Court, all of which were dismissed

The State provided a factual undertaking that a special fund had been allotted and the budget would be released by the end of May 2026 for disbursement to the petitioners

The Court reasoned that since the State had taken concrete steps toward fiscal allotment, the judgment had been "substantially complied with," rendering the continuation of contempt proceedings unnecessary at this stage

The Court held that there was no useful purpose in continuing the petitions as compliance was underway

However, it granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court again if the directed compliance was not fully realized