Supreme Court: While considering these appeals concerning the pay parity of the contractually appointed Assistant Professors, the Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., allowed the appeals and by applying the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, asked the State to rationalise their pay structure and directed that the contractual Assistant Professors be paid minimum of the scale payable to Assistant Professors.
The Court said that academicians, lecturers and professors are the intellectual backbone of any nation, as they dedicate their lives to shaping the minds and character of future generations. Their work goes far beyond delivering lessons. However, in many contexts, the compensation and recognition extended to them do not truly reflect the significance of their contribution. “When educators are not treated with dignity or offered respectable emoluments, it diminishes the value a country places on knowledge and undermines the motivation of those entrusted with building its intellectual capital”.
“It is just not enough to keep reciting Gurubramha Gururvishnu Gurdevo Maheshwarah at public functions. If we believe in this declaration, it must be reflected in the way the nation treats its teachers”.
Background & Legal Trajectory:
Through a resolution in 2008, a decision was taken to appoint Assistant Professors on ad hoc basis, and this decision led to a large number of Assistant Professors being appointed on an ad hoc basis. In the same year, when AICTE sanctioned additional seats, the Government passed yet another resolution on 12-09-2008 sanctioning 156 posts of lecturers and it was then decided that the said posts must be filled on contractual basis. Therefore, an advertisement was issued in September 2009, and it was notified that selection will be based on merit, confining to those who had obtained first division in the qualifying examination. The selected candidates were appointed on contractual basis as Assistant Professors in various Governmental Engineering and Polytechnic Colleges of the State.
In 2015, two sets of Assistant Professors filed writ petitions- those who were appointed on an ad hoc basis and those who are appointed on a contractual basis.
Assistant Professors appointed on an ad hoc basis sought parity of pay with those who were similarly appointed on ad hoc basis prior to 08-05-2008. They contended that ad hoc Lecturers appointed prior to 08-05-2008 were getting large number of benefits, with approximate parity with regularly appointed Assistant Professors and there was no justification to create a sub-classification within ad hoc Assistant Professors, on the basis of those appointed before 08-05-2008 and those after. The Single Judge partly allowed the prayer of ad hoc Assistant Professors and directed that they shall have parity of pay with ad hoc Lecturers appointed before 20-05-2008. The State thereafter appealed before the Division Bench and by its judgment dated 24-01-2018 in Acharya Madhavi Bhavin v. State of Gujarat, the Division Bench confirmed the decision of the Single Judge with a minor modification that the ad hoc Assistant Professors will be entitled to arrears at the rate of 8% from 3 years preceding the filing of their writ petitions. The SLP filed by the State against Acharya Madhavi (supra) was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 14-12-2018.
Insofar as the Assistant Professors, appointed on contractual basis were concerned, the Single Judge gave direction that they will be entitled to a minimum of the pay scale of Assistant Professors. In the appeals filed by the State against the contractual Assistant Professors, the Division Bench of the High Court in State of Gujarat v. Gohel Vishal Chhaganbhai dismissed the appeals. The Review Petitions filed by the State were also dismissed on 22-03-2024.
Aggrieved by the afore-said dismissal, the State of Gujarat contended that terms and conditions of Assistant Professors, appointed on contractual basis, were governed by the contracts. The selection process as well as the nature of appointment was starkly distinct and, as such, claim for parity with ad hoc employees, much less regularly appointed Assistant Professors, is impermissible.
Court’s Assessment:
Dealing with the appeal filed by the State against Gohel Vishal Chhaganbhai (supra), the Court at the outset pointed out that it was disturbing to see how lecturers, holding the post of Assistant Professors, continued to be paid and subsist on such low salaries for almost two decades.
The Court took note that of the 2720 sanctioned posts, only 923 posts were filled by regularly appointed staff. To address this shortage and to ensure continuity of academic activities, the State Government resorted to ad hoc and contractual appointments. While 158 posts were filled by ad hoc appointments, 902 posts were filled on a contractual basis. This measure left 737 posts vacant, and this number in fact increased with the sanctioning of 525 new posts of Assistant Professors and 347 posts of Lecturers. “With large number of sanctioned posts remaining vacant, the State Government continues to make appointments on an ad hoc and contractual basis”.
The Court further took note that the State did not even contend that the contractual Assistant Professors perform duties and functions that are distinct from those of the regularly appointed Assistant Professors or even the ad hoc Assistant Professors.
The Court referred to Sabha Shanker Dube v. Divisional Forest Officer, (2019) 12 SCC 297, wherein distinction between claims for regularization, and parity in pay was drawn and the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ was affirmed. The Court thus dismissed the appeal filed by the State.
While dealing with appeals filed by the contractually appointed Assistant Professors, the Court observed that, “The life of the appellants, working as Assistant Professors on contractual basis has remained the same, as those of their colleagues examined in the previous episode”.
The contractual Assistant Professors were appointed pursuant to the advertisements dated 27-09-2012 and 20-02-2013, issued based on Governmental Resolution for appointment to sanction posts through contract.
The Court noted that the contractual Assistant Professors were seeking parity of pay. The prayer for regularization, though made in the earlier rounds of litigation was never accepted. It was observed that Assistant professors appointed on contractual basis during 2011 to 2025 have been working at abysmally low monthly emoluments for the last two decades. While there is no material whatsoever drawing out a distinction between the duties and functions performed by them and that of their colleagues appointed regularly or on ad hoc basis, they continue to draw monthly salary of Rs. 30,000, which the Court found as “disturbing”.
The Court emphasised that it is high time that the State takes up the issue and rationalize the pay structure on the basis of functions that the contractual Assistant Professors perform.
Therefore, allowing the appeals in part, the Court directed the contractually appointed Assistant Professors, shall be entitled to the minimum pay scale admissible to Assistant Professors. Arrears calculated at the rate of 8% shall be paid from three years preceding the date of filing of the writ petitions.
[Shah Samir Bharatbhai v. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1788, decided on 22-8-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv. Ms. Neha Singh, Adv. Mr. Naman Tandon, Adv. Mr. Alakh Alok Srivastava, AOR Mr. Rishabh Bafna, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ullas Gohil, Adv. Mr. Pradhuman Gohil, Adv. Mrs. Taruna Singh Gohil, AOR Mr. Alapati Sahithya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Hetvi Ketan Patel, Adv. Ms. Hetvi K. Patel, Adv. Mr. Rushabh N. Kapadia, Adv. Ms. Taniya Bansal, Adv. Ms. Preeti Gupta, AOR Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ullas Gohil, Adv. Ms. Ankita Wadhwa, Adv. Ms. Anushka Rawal, Adv. Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv. Ms. Neha Singh, Adv. Mr. Naman Tandon, Adv.
