'Disturbing That Contractual Asst Professors Get Only Rs 30K' : Supreme Court Asks Gujarat Govt To Rationalise Pay Structure
Gursimran Kaur Bakshi
22 Aug 2025 9:40 PM IST
The Court criticised the State for making ad-hoc appointments even when sanctioned posts remained vacant.
The Supreme Court expressed dismay at the low salaries being given to the Assistant Professors who are appointed on contractual basis in various Government Colleges in the State of Gujarat.The Court stated that it was hightime for the State to rationalise the pay structure of Assistant Professors on the basis of functions that they perform.It noted that while Assitant Professors appointed...
The Supreme Court expressed dismay at the low salaries being given to the Assistant Professors who are appointed on contractual basis in various Government Colleges in the State of Gujarat.
The Court stated that it was hightime for the State to rationalise the pay structure of Assistant Professors on the basis of functions that they perform.
It noted that while Assitant Professors appointed on contractual basis are currently drawing a monthly salary of Rs.30,000/-, ad-hoc Assistant Professors are drawing approximately Rs.1,16,000/- per month and regular appointees about Rs.1,36,952/-, though all of them are performing identical functions.
"It is disturbing that Assistant Professors are getting monthly emoluments of Rs. 30,000/- It is high time that the State takes up the issue and rationalize the pay structure on the basis of functions that they perform," observed the bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
"We have a serious concern about the way we treat our teachers," the Court lamented.
The Court said that it's not enough to keep reciting "gurubramha gururvishnu gurdevo maheshwarah(the Guru is the Supreme Reality (Brahman); I bow to that Guru) at public functions, because if we truly believe in it, it must be reflected in the way the nation treats its teachers.
The Court went to the extent of saying that lecturers are the backbone of this country and they need to be treated with dignity in terms of the constitutional principle of equal pay for equal work.
"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—it involves mentoring, guiding research, nurturing critical thinking, and instilling values that contribute to the progress of society. 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. By ensuring fair remuneration and dignified treatment, we affirm the importance of their role and reinforce the nation's commitment to quality education, innovation, and a brighter future for its youth."
Court criticises state for making ad-hoc appointments despite vacancies in sanctioned posts
At the outset, the Supreme Court expressed its dismay at the way the contractually appointed have been treated and how State continues to appoint them on an ad hoc and contractual basis despite the sanctioned post remaining vacant.
"More than the justifiable claim for parity, it is rather disturbing to see how lecturers, holding the post of Assistant Professors, continue to be paid and subsist on such low salaries for almost two decades. We are informed 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 has 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 was dealing with a situation where contractually appointed Assistant Professors, performing the same functions and duties as those of Assistant Professors regularly appointed, were only getting Rs. 30,000 as compared to Rs. 40,412 granted to the latter in 2012. They had sought parity of pay.
The Court, while allowing the petitioners the minimum pay in the payscale of Asst Professors, remarked that the facts are "egregious" as these contractually based employees have been working at "abysmally low" monthly emoluments for the last two decades. This despite the fact that even those appointed on an ad hoc basis were regularised to similarly placed teachers and were earning more.
The Court was hearing two sets of appeals. One was filed by the State of Gujarat against the Gujarat High Court's division bench order affirming the single judge's order that contractually appointed Assistant Professors are entitled to the minimum pay scale of regularly appointed Assistant Professors (Acharya Madhavi Bhavin & Ors v. State of Gujarat) and that ad hoc appointees made should get parity with similarly placed appointed prior to May 8, 2008 (State of Gujarat v. Gohel Vishal Chhaganbhai & Ors).
The division bench upheld with a modification that they will be entitled to arrears at the rate of 8% from 3 years preceding the filing of their writ petitions, that is, from 2012 onwards. These appeals was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Second appeal was filed as a sequel to the two judgments, by contractually appointed Assistant Professors, appointed in 2012 and 2013, seeking parity with regular or ad hoc Assistant Professors. Their plea was allowed by a single judge stating that they should be equivalent to regularly appointed. It granted them annual increments and other benefits from the date of their initial appointment. However, on appeal, the division bench held that the single judgment did not follow the above two decisions and dismissed their plea altogether without arriving at any logical conclusion.
These are teachers teaching in various Government Engineering Colleges and Polytechnic Colleges of Gujarat.
On the second appeal, it then held that similar arguments were made by the State before the division bench in the first set of appeals, which was rightly rejected and a special leave petition against that was dismissed by this Court. On a similar position, there is no reason for the Court not to adopt a similar logic in the present case. It also stated that if the division bench found that the single judge did not follow the earlier orders, it should have set it aside and disposed of the petition on a logical conclusion.
Setting aside the second appeal, It held: "It is disturbing that Assistant Professors are getting monthly emoluments of Rs. 30,000/-. It is high time that the State takes up the issue and rationalize the pay structure on the basis of functions that they perform. For the present we have followed the decisions of the Gujarat High Court in Acharya Madhavi (supra) and Gohel Vishal Chhaganbhai (supra) to grant appellants the same relief as in those cases. We leave it open to the appellants and such similarly placed Assistant Professors to work out their remedies before the High Court in view of their continued service for a long period. It is for the High Court to consider the same and pass orders as per law."
Case Details: SHAH SAMIR BHARATBHAI & ORS. v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.|SLP (C) NO. 1347 OF 2024
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 827