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

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1634

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ, G.M. MOHIUDDIN, J.
The Telangana State Council of Higher Education –Appellant   
Versus
Dr. B.N.V. Satyanarayana – Respondent 
Writ Appeal No. 1019 of 2025
Decided On : 11-11-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : A P SURESH RAM SC FOR TGCHE
For the Respondent: P V RAMANA

Court ruled contractual roles do not warrant claims to regular pay scales despite longstanding service, emphasizing adherence to explicit employment terms.

Headnote:(A) Pay Structure - The governing principles for the determination of pay scale as per UGC norms and contractual appointments were analyzed to clarify responsibilities and entitlements. (Paras 11-13)

(B) Equal Pay for Equal Work - It was determined that mere similarities in titles do not imply equivalent duties, ruling out equal pay claims based on functional differences. (Paras 11-12)

(C) Contractual Nature of Engagement - The court highlighted that contractual positions without sanctioned posts do not grant rights to regular pay scales. (Para 11)

Facts of the case:
The writ petitioner applied for the Director post but was appointed as Coordinator on a consolidated salary. Claims for pay parity with UGC scales were made post CIHL's dissolution. (Paras 3-5)

Findings of Court:
The Single Judge’s order was found erroneous as it failed to acknowledge the limited rights under the contractual agreement and resolutions ratified by the CIHL. (Paras 12-13)

Issues: The court examined the legitimacy of claims for full UGC pay scales based on contractual terms and the applicability of the equal pay for equal work principle. (Paras 11-12)

Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner’s contractual appointment was not tantamount to a regular post; thus, the ruling clarified that adherence to the explicit contractual terms is paramount, particularly when interpreting governing council resolutions. (Paras 11-13)

Result: The Writ Appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 21.04.2025 is set aside.

Table of Content
1. introduction of the case and summary of the lower court's order. (Para 1 , 2)
2. background facts regarding the petitioner’s roles and claims for pay structure. (Para 3 , 4)
3. arguments presented by the parties regarding contractual terms and equal pay claims. (Para 7 , 8)
4. court's reasoning on contractual obligations and distinctions from regular employment. (Para 11 , 12)
5. final decision to allow the appeal and set aside the previous order. (Para 13)

JUDGMENT :

1. This Writ Appeal assails the order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.32364 of 2017, whereby the Writ Petition filed by respondent No.1 herein (writ petitioner) was allowed, directing the appellants herein to grant the writ petitioner the pay scale of an Associate Professor under the UGC Pay Scales of 2006 with subsequent revision along with arrears.

2. Heard Sri A.P.Suresh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri P.V.Ramana, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the record.

Factual Matrix (in brief)

3. The factual background, necessary for the adjudication of this appeal, is as follows:

i) Respondent No.1 herein/writ petitioner (hereafter "the petitioner") applied for the post of Director in response to an advertisement in the Hindu Daily dated 22.08.2006 (Ex.P-1). However, he was appointed as Coordinator, 21st Century Gurukulams under the Consortium of Institutions of Higher Learning (hereafter “CIHL”), vide proceedings dated 20.01.2007. His appointment was on a consolidated salary which is equivalent to the starting pay of a Lecturer in the UGC 1996 scales of pay (Ex.P-2). The relevant portion of the order of appointment dated 20.01.2007 is extracted as under:

In pursuance of orders under reference cited, Sri B.N.V. Satyanarayana, Vice-Principal Anniebesant PG College, Khammam is appointed as Co-ordinator, 21st Century Gurukulatos, on a consolidated salary which is equivalent to the starting pay of a lecturer in the UGC 1996 scales of pay (DP merged Rs.8000-16000). Nature of works, period of appointment etc., will be decided by the Governing Council of CIHL The appointment shall come into force from the date of reporting to the duty.

ii) The Governing Council of CIHL, as per the minutes of the meeting on 08.03.2007 (Ex.P-3), ratified the following:

10. Ratifications:

The following issues have been ratified by the members of governing council of CIHL:

a. A consolidate amount of Rs.23,000 (Twenty three thousands) will be paid as monthly salary to the Directors apart from free accommodation and boarding. (The above salary is fixed to keep parity with Associate Professor in the UGC-1996 scales of pay (D A merged) HRA is not included since accommodation is provided).

b. A consolidated amount of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.8000/- and Rs.4000/- will be paid to Associate IT Mentor, Assistant IT Mentor and Teaching IT Mentor respectively.

C. Mr BNV Satyanarayana is appointed as Coordinator of 21th Century Gurukulam. He will be paid salary on par with the Directors of Gurukulam.

d. Mr Praveen, Principal Mentor of IIIT, has been appointed as Director academic for 21th Century Gurukulam to advice and assist the Chairman of Consortium of Institutions of Higher Learning in day to day functioning of the gurukulam. He will continue to draw salary and other perks from the parent institution (IIIT)

c. An allowance of Rs.500/- will be paid to 'Resident Mentors' who perform duties on Public Holidays, and Sundays at Gurukulams Centre.

As seen from the above, the said meeting held on 08.03.2007 ratified that the petitioner would be paid a salary on par with the Directors of the Gurukulams, which was fixed at Rs.23,000/- (later noted that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was paid since January, 2007 in the meeting on 29.02.2012), a sum intended to be in parity with the pay of an Associate Professor under UGC 1996 scales. It was also stated that Directors were provided free accommodation and boarding in lieu of HRA.

iii) Subsequently, the Governing Council as per th

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