The Supreme Court on Tuesday brought a long-running salary dispute involving part-time teachers in West Bengal back to the table, after finding gaps in how earlier directions were carried out. Disposing of a batch of contempt petitions, the court allowed the teachers to submit fresh representations, stressing that proper hearings and record checks were essential before any final decision on their dues.
Background of the Case
The case traces its roots to a 2020 judgment of the Calcutta High Court, which granted relief to part-time contractual teachers working in non-government aided higher secondary schools. The High Court had directed the State of West Bengal to pay them salary equivalent to the basic pay of regular teachers for a specific period between July 2010 and December 2013.
The State challenged this decision before the Supreme Court in 2021. While the High Court judgment remained stayed for some time, the Supreme Court, in July 2024, asked the State to comply with the High Court’s directions within three months and extend the same benefits to all similarly placed teachers.
When several teachers alleged that these directions were still not followed, four contempt petitions were filed, accusing state officials of deliberate non-compliance.
Appearing before the court, the petitioners argued that despite clear timelines and instructions, the relief promised on paper never reached them in full. They claimed:
- Salary arrears were either unpaid or partially paid
- Their representations were decided without any personal hearing
- School records such as attendance registers and class schedules were never examined
Senior counsel for the teachers told the bench that the process ordered by the High Court and later affirmed by the Supreme Court had been reduced to a formality. “The directions were detailed, but the exercise was mechanical,” the court was told.
The State government, represented by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, rejected the charge of wilful disobedience. It was submitted that whatever amounts were found payable had already been released and that there was no deliberate attempt to ignore the court’s orders.
However, during the hearing, the State fairly conceded that the teachers were not given an opportunity of personal hearing, nor were school records summoned before deciding their claims.
Court’s Observations
After hearing both sides, the bench took note of this admission. It observed that the earlier directions clearly required a hearing and a proper examination of records before any decision could be taken.
Read also:- Bombay High Court restrains former franchisee from using Jawed Habib trademark after franchise expiry
“The petitioners were not granted an opportunity of hearing… nor were the records of the concerned schools called for,” the court recorded, making it clear that such lapses could not be brushed aside.
At the same time, the bench refrained from holding the officials guilty of contempt, choosing instead to focus on ensuring a fair and lawful process going forward.
The Decision
Bringing the contempt proceedings to a close, the Supreme Court passed the following directions:
- The petitioners are free to file fresh representations before the Secretary, School Education Department, within six weeks
- The Secretary must grant them a personal hearing, either directly or through legal representatives
- Relevant records must be summoned from the schools and made available for inspection
- A reasoned order must be passed within four months after considering all materials
The court clarified that if the final decision goes against the teachers, they would be free to seek remedies available under law.
With these directions, the contempt petitions were disposed of on January 6, 2026.
Case Title: Gurupada Bera & Ors. v. Binod Kumar & Ors.
Case No.: Contempt Petition (Civil) Diary No. 18826 of 2025 & connected matters
Decision Date: January 6, 2026
