SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Ker) 114

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. Nagaresh, J.
Dr Trivedi Maharshi Dineshbhai – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By Its Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 25588 of 2025
Decided On : 06-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri.R.T.Pradeep, Smt.M.Bindudas, Sri.Niranjan T. Pradeep
For the Respondent: Sri.Athul Shaji, Sri.K.S.Prenjith Kumar, Sc, Sri.Gautham H., Sri.Premchand R Nair, Sr.Government Pleader

Petitioners entitled to Assistant Professor designation and salary during bond service, affirming equal pay for equal work as per constitutional provisions.

Headnote:(A) Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions (Amendment) Regulations, 2019 and 2022 - Petitioners, who completed their super specialty courses, challenged the designation as Senior Residents during the bond period, asserting entitlement to Assistant Professor pay scale based on qualifications. Government Orders conflicting with regulations were contested. The court ruled that equal pay for equal work is to be upheld as per Articles 14, 16, and 39(d) of the Constitution. (Paras 22, 21, 19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners underwent super specialty courses, completed bond service, and were appointed as Senior Residents, seeking Assistant Professor designation and salary during the bond period. The Government's orders limited designation to Senior Residents despite the qualifications of the petitioners.

Findings of Court:
The petitioners are entitled to minimum salary applicable to Assistant Professors as they perform similar duties and possess requisite qualifications. Arrears to be paid within two months.

Issues: Whether bond service can count towards Assistant Professor designation and appropriate salary during the bond period.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized constitutional provisions mandating equal pay for equal work and held that the petitioners must be classified as Assistant Professors for the duration of the bond service. The decision underlines that executing bonds should not lead to inequitable pay practices.

Result: Writ petition disposed off favorably, directing payment as stated.

Table of Content
1. entitlement of petitioners as assistant professors (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. counterarguments regarding appointment and bond period (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. constitutional principles on equal pay and service count (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT :

N. Nagaresh, J.

The petitioners, who were Senior Residents, seek to set aside Ext.P12 and to direct the 3rd respondent- Director, Regional Cancer Centre to treat the bond period of the petitioners as Assistant Professors with scale of pay applicable to that post rather than as Senior Residents.

2. The petitioners state that they completed their Super Specialty in Mch/DM in the Regional Cancer Centre and have undergone their bond period of one year on being appointed as Senior Residents. The petitioners submit that they are entitled to be appointed as Assistant Professors during the bond period in view of their qualifications and are entitled to the scale of pay applicable to the post.

3. MCh and DM are super specialty degree courses of three year duration. The petitioners completed the super specialty course in the year 2020. They commenced one year bond service period in terms of the conditions of joining the course. After completion of the course, during the bond period, the petitioners were appointed as Senior Resident though they had the qualification to be appointed as Assistant Professor.

4. When the petitioners were undergoing the three year course, they were paid monthly stipend of Rs.65,000/- to Rs.69,000/- without income tax deduction. However, when they were appointed as Senior Residents, they were placed in the scale of pay at the rate of Rs.71,000/- with 10% income tax deduction. They are forced to receive monthly salary which is less than the monthly stipend earlier earned by them. The petitioners would urge that the Regulations, 2019 and 2022 mandate to designate the petitioners as Assistant Professors.

5. The petitioners submit that Ext.P5 G.O.dated 20.02.2018 gives clear indication that during the period of undergoing the super specialty course, the students shall be reckoned as Senior Residents and the bond period after successful completion of the course shall be treated as Assistant Professor with scale of pay applicable to the post. Ext.P6 advisory dated 09.08.2021 of the National Medical Commission also states that whenever the examinations have been held and the results are declared, the DM/MCh candidates shall be designated as Assistant Professors and be paid accordingly.

6. The Minimum Qualification for Teachers in Medical Institutions (Amendment) Regulations, 2019 provided that the designation of Senior Resident is for those students registered for MCh/DM course and those with DM/MCh degree are to be appointed as Assistant Professors. The subsequently introduced Regulations, 2022 also provided that only DM/MCh students shall be designated as Senior Residents and those with DM/MCh degree are to be appointed as Assistant Professors.

7. The petitioners pointed out that in Ext.P9 judgment dated 07.11.2012, a Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai has held that the Super Specialty Degree holders shall undergo the bonded service in the post befitting to their qualification. The Government of Kerala, however, as per Ext.P10 G.O. dated 21.12.2021 decided not to reckon the bond period after successful completion of DM/MCh course in the post of Assistant Professor due to the inability to pay as per the pay scale applicable to that post. The Government, however, issued Ext.P12 GO dated 14.03.2023 concurring with its earlier Ext.P10 decision. Unless this Court interferes in the matter and directs the 3rd respondent to issue certificate of completion of bond period reckoning the same as service in the post of Assistant Professors, the petitioners will be put to injustice, contended the petitioners.

8. The 3rd respondent-Director, RCC filed counter affidavit. The 3rd respondent submitted that the Medi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top