1. Contractual and ad hoc Assistant Professors seeking pay parity with regular employees based on identical duties and qualifications. (Para 2 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 24 , 25 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1250
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.
Shah Samir Bharatbhai & Ors.- Appellants
Versus
The State of Gujarat & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11028 of 2025 Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 1347 of 2024 With Civil Appeal No(S). 11029 of 2025 Arising Out of Slp (C) No. 6523 of 2024 With Civil Appeal No(S). 11030 of 2025 Arising Out of Slp (C) No. of 2025 @ Diary No. 26736/2024 With Civil Appeal No(S). .11031 of 2025 Arising Out of Slp (C) No. of 2025 @ Diary No. 26794/2024 With Civil Appeal No(S). ..........of 2025 Arising Out of Slp (C) No. of 2025 @ Diary No. 26843/2024
Decided On : 22-08-2025
Important Points
The Court affirmed the principle of 'equal pay for equal work,' ruling that contractually appointed Assistant Professors performing identical duties as regular employees are entitled to the minimum of the pay scale admissible to Assistant Professors, as temporary employees are entitled to minimum pay scales while in service.
Subject
Employment Law - Educational Employment Compensation
Headnote
(A) Equal Pay for Equal Work - Principles of employment equity - Ensuring parity in compensation among contractually appointed Assistant Professors with their ad hoc and regular counterparts. (Para 3)
(B) Right to Just Remuneration - Importance of fair compensation for educators reflecting their contribution to society. (Para 4)
(C) Judicial Precedent - Adherence to the principles laid out in the preceding cases establishes entitlement to minimum pay scales. (Para 30)
Facts of the case:
The appeals arise from decisions of the High Court allowing parity in pay for contractually appointed Assistant Professors against the State’s opposition to equitable remuneration. The appellants, performing identical duties as regularly appointed or ad hoc Assistant Professors, claimed minimum scale pay.
Findings of Court:
The court found that similarly situated employees should be paid in accordance with parity principles established by prior judgments, ensuring fair treatment and compensation.
Issues: The court addressed issues related to the lawful salary entitlements for contractually appointed lecturers versus those in ad hoc positions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the constitutional principle of equal pay for equal work, and stressed that the Division Bench's dismissal of the application for parity was erroneous given the lack of functional distinctions among various forms of employment.
Result: Appeals allowed, and contractually appointed Assistant Professors directed to receive the minimum pay scale admissible.
(B) Right to Just Remuneration - Importance of fair compensation for educators reflecting their contribution to society. (Para 4)
(C) Judicial Precedent - Adherence to the principles laid out in the preceding cases establishes entitlement to minimum pay scales. (Para 30)
Facts of the case:
The appeals arise from decisions of the High Court allowing parity in pay for contractually appointed Assistant Professors against the State’s opposition to equitable remuneration. The appellants, performing identical duties as regularly appointed or ad hoc Assistant Professors, claimed minimum scale pay.
Findings of Court:
The court found that similarly situated employees should be paid in accordance with parity principles established by prior judgments, ensuring fair treatment and compensation.
Issues: The court addressed issues related to the lawful salary entitlements for contractually appointed lecturers versus those in ad hoc positions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the constitutional principle of equal pay for equal work, and stressed that the Division Bench's dismissal of the application for parity was erroneous given the lack of functional distinctions among various forms of employment.
Result: Appeals allowed, and contractually appointed Assistant Professors directed to receive the minimum pay scale admissible.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the 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 the 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.
For the 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 the 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.
Table of Contents
2. State contends contractual terms govern remuneration and that distinct selection processes preclude parity with regular or ad hoc employees. (Para 17 , 28 )
3. Contractual appointees possess requisite qualifications and perform identical functions as regular staff, making discriminatory pay treatment unjustifiable. (Para 4 , 5 , 7 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 31 , 32 , 33 )
4. Temporary employees performing identical duties as regular staff are entitled to the minimum of the pay scales under the principle of equal pay for equal work. (Para 20 , 22 )
5. Contractual Assistant Professors granted the minimum pay scale and arrears with interest; State's appeals dismissed. (Para 3 , 23 , 34 )
6. Are temporary or contractual employees entitled to the same pay scale as regular employees?
Temporary employees are entitled to the minimum of the pay scales as long as they continue in service, provided they perform identical duties and functions as regular employees. (Para 20 , 22 )
7. Does the existence of a contract with fixed remuneration preclude a claim for pay parity?
No, if the contractual employees are equally qualified and discharge the same responsibilities as regular employees without functional difference, the principle of equal pay for equal work applies. (Para 19 , 20 )
8. Are employees granted pay parity entitled to arrears and interest?
Yes, interest is considered a logical consequence of restitutionary relief, and arrears can be granted for a specific period preceding the filing of the writ petition. (Para 21 , 34 )
JUDGMENT :
1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. These clutch of appeals stem from two judgments delivered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat. In the first judgment1[R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 1159 of 2017 dated 14.02.2023, in R/MCA No. 721 of 2024 dated 22.03.2024.], State of Gujarat & Anr. v. Gohel Vishal Chhaganbhai & Ors. State’s Letter Patent Appeals against orders of the single Judge granting the minimum scale of Assistant Professors to the respondents contractually appointed as Assistant Professors was dismissed. The State is before us in the first set of Civil Appeals. The second set of Civil Appeals pertain to some of the subsequently appointed contractual Assistant Professors, whose writ petitions were allowed by the single Judge granting complete parity with similarly placed Assistant Professors. The Division Bench, in State’s Letter Patent Appeals went to the other extreme of allowing the appeals and dismissing the writ petitions altogether. Thus, the contractually appointed Assistant Professors are before us.
3. While applying the principles of equal pay for equal work and confirming the directions of the Division Bench to pay a minimum of the pay scale of Assistant Professors to the respondents, we have dismissed the State’s appeals. Applying the same principles, we have allowed the Civil Appeals filed by similarly placed contractually appointed Assistant Professors and directed that they shall be paid minimum of the scale payable to Assistant Professors.
4. 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.
5. It is just not enough to keep reciting gurubramha gururvishnu gurdevo maheshwarah2 at public functions. If we believe in this declaration, it must be reflected in the way the nation treats its teachers.
6. We will first be dealing with the appeals filed by the State against the judgment of the Division Bench dated 14.02.2023, thereafter, we will take up the appeals filed by the contractually appointed Assistant Professors.
Re: Appeals Preferred by State of Gujarat – In State of Gujarat & Anr. v. Gohel Vishal Chhaganbhai & Ors. This decision will also dispose of Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) (Diary No.)- 26736/2024, SLP (C) (Diary No.)- 26794/2024 and SLP (C) (Diary No.)- 26843/2024.
7. We have a serious concern about the way we treat our teachers. They educate our future generations, enable them to acquire the necessary qualifications and expertise. The respondents have been teaching in various Government Engineering Colleges and other Institutions of the State of Gujarat. The All-India Council for Technical Education has declared that these lecturers must be re-designated as Assistant Professors. Their story, to the extent that it is relevant for disposal of these appeals is as follows: -
8. The State of Gujarat submits that a significant number of posts in Government Engineering and Polytechnic Colleges remained vacant for a long period, with some positions reportedly unfilled for over 20 years. It is stated that through a resolution in 2008, a decision was taken to appoint Assistant Professors on ad hoc basis, and this decision led to a lar
