Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Guj) 1334

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
N.V. ANJARIA, CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, JJ.
State Of Gujarat - Appellant
Versus
Shah Samir Bharatbhai – Respondent
R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 1371 Of 2023 In R/Special Civil Application No. 11567 Of 2018 With Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 Of 2023
Decided On : 20-12-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms Manisha L. Shah, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr Siddharth Rami, AGP.
For the Respondent: Ms Namrata Harishbhai Chauhan.

The court reinforced that contractual lecturers cannot claim equal pay as ad-hoc or regular professors due to foundational differences in recruitment, duties, and pay structure, thus affirming the principle of judicial precedents.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work - Appeal against judgment and order directing the State to grant pay scales and benefits equivalent to regularly appointed Assistant Professors to contractual lecturers - Court found that prior judgments established that contractual lecturers cannot claim the same pay as ad-hoc or regular lecturers due to differences in appointments, qualifications, and benefits - The learned Single Judge was found to have acted beyond jurisdiction by equating the pay scales without basis in law. (Paras 5.6, 6.2, 6.4)

Facts of the case:
Eighteen petitioners, appointed as contractual Assistant Professors from 2011 to 2015, challenged the State's refusal to grant them pay and benefits at par with regularly appointed and ad-hoc Assistant Professors, invoking the principle of equal pay for equal work. They argued similarity in duties performed by them and regular employees. (Paras 2.1, 3.1)

Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge's order directing equal treatment for contractual lecturers with ad-hoc and regular lecturers was set aside, reinforcing the principle that differences in recruitment and job conditions justify varying pay scales. Judges highlighted the binding nature of earlier judgments concerning similar cases involving contractual lecturers and reaffirmed judicial decorum concerning adherence to precedent. (Paras 5.7, 6.3)

Issues: Whether the learned Single Judge erred in granting pay scales and benefits to contractual lecturers equivalent to those provided to regularly appointed professors and if the principle of equal pay for equal work was improperly applied. (Paras 5.3, 6.1)

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that contractual and regular employees differ fundamentally due to recruitment processes, qualifications, and financial entitlements, thus invalidating the application of equal pay principles without a proper basis. The Single Judge's ruling was contrary to established precedents. (Paras 6.4, 6.5)

Result: Letters Patent Appeal allowed, setting aside the judgment and order dated 5.7.2023. The earlier order requiring the State to provide equal pay was found unsustainable and was annulled.

Table of Content
1. the contract workers are seeking equality in pay with permanent positions. (Para 2 , 3)
2. arguments centered on administrative errors and employment equality rights. (Para 4)
3. court emphasize the adherence to established legal precedents in employment law. (Para 5)
4. rationale stressing the importance of judicial discipline in following precedents. (Para 6)
5. final judgment overturning the lower court's decision. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT :

(N.V. Anjaria, J.)

Heard learned Additional Advocate General Ms.Manisha Lavkumar assisted by learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Siddharth Rami for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr.Namrata Chauhan for the respondent.

2. The present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred by the State is directed against judgment and order dated 5.7.2023 read with order upon the Note for Speaking-to-Minutes dated 19.7.2023 passed in Special Civil Application thereby the appellant – original respondents came to be directed to grant pay scale and other benefits to the petitioners equivalent to minimum of the pay scale of Assistant Professors appointed on regular basis.

2.1 The directions given by learned Single Judge are extracted from paragraph 6 of the judgment and order,

"The respondents are directed to grant pay scale and other benefits to the petitioners equivalent to minimum of the pay scale of Asst. Professor appointed on Regular basis and to grant them the Pay and Pay-scales, Annual increments and all other benefits at part with them, with effect from the dates of their initial appointments and give all the consequential benefits to the petitioners, including the monetary benefits, arrears etc. The respondents are also directed to pay benefit of revised pay scale to the petitioners from time to tile. The respondents are directed to to give all the benefits as per the Circulars dated 15/10/ 1992 and 20/7/1999 as are being granted to the Ad Hoc Asst. Professor and give uniform treatment to the petitioners at par with the Ad Hoc Professor."

2.2 Thus, the directions include to grant to the petitioners the pay-scale and other benefits equivalent to the pay-scale granted to the Assistant Professors appointed on regular basis. It is further provided to extend the benefits of annual increments and other benefits at par with the regularly appointed Assistant Professors from the date of initial appointments of the petitioners.

2.2.1 Thirdly, the directions came to be issued to pay benefit of revised pay-scale to the petitioners time to time. Forthly, it was directed to give all the benefits flowing from Circulars dated 15.10.1992 and 28.07.1999 as granted to the adhoc Assistant Professors. It was thus directed to give uniform treatment to the petitioners at par with the adhoc Professors.

3. In the writ petition filed by eighteen petitioners, it was prayed to grant to them the pay and other benefits equivalent to the other regularly appointed Assistant Professors. It was further prayed to direct the respondent authorities not to terminate the services of the petitioners and not to alter their service conditions adverse to them until the sanctioned post of Assistant Professors were duly filled up by the candidate selected by Gujarat Public Service Commission. The petitioners prayed for extending the benefits as per the Circulars dated 15.10.1992 and 28.07.1999, as granted to the ad-hoc Assistant Professors. The petitioners wanted to be treated at par with the ad-hoc Professors in respect of the grant of religious holidays, vacation leaves and permission for higher studies etc.

3.1 The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Professors in the different government engineering colleges between the year 2011 to 2015, on contractual basis. Their appointments were for a period of eleven months with defeasance clause, namely until the vacancies are filled up by Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC). The petitioners stated that they had been continued for more than six years as GPSC was