Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 5456
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
DR. B.N.V. SATYANARAYANA HYDERABAD – Appellant
Versus
TELANGANA STATE COUNCIL OF HIGHER EDUCATION HYD AND 3 OTHERS – Respondent
WP/32364/2017
Contractual appointees are entitled to regular pay scales if supported by resolutions, emphasizing equal pay for equal work.
Headnote:(A) UGC Pay Scales - Resolutions dated 08.03.2007 and 29.02.2012 - Equal pay for equal work - Petitioner, appointed as Coordinator, claimed salary parity with Directors of Gurukulams, receiving only Rs.37,000/- instead of Rs.72,848/- entitled under UGC 2006 pay scales - Respondents failed to implement resolutions for salary adjustment. (Paras 2, 5, 6)
(B) Employment Law - Contractual appointments - Court emphasized that contractual appointees are entitled to pay scales of regular posts if resolutions support such parity - Respondents' argument of lack of sanctioned post for Associate Professor was found untenable. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, with extensive qualifications and experience, was appointed as Coordinator but received a consolidated pay significantly lower than the UGC pay scales despite resolutions for parity.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner is entitled to the pay scale of Associate Professor under UGC 2006 pay scales with all arrears.
Issues: The main issues included the entitlement of the petitioner to the pay scale of Associate Professor and the validity of the respondents' refusal based on the lack of sanctioned posts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner is entitled to the pay provided to the post of Associate Professor under UGC pay scales, emphasizing the principle of equal pay for equal work.
Result: Writ Petition allowed.
O R D E R:
Petitioner questions the action of Respondents in not implementing the Resolution passed by the 3rd Respondent on 08.03.2007 for payment of salary on par with the Director of Gurukulams, and instead paying a consolidated pay of Rs.37,000/- against the entitled Rs.72,848/-.
2. Petitioner, being an M.B.A., LL.B. and Ph.D. in Business Management, with 16 years of industrial and 13 years of academic experience, responded to an advertisement issued by the 1st Respondent - A.P. State Council of Higher Education, applied for the post of Director and underwent selection process. However, the then Chairman of the Council appointed him as Coordinator, 21st Century Gurukulams, by order dated 20.01.2007 with consolidated pay of Rs.8000-16000 treating the same as equivalent to the starting pay of a Lecturer in the UGC 1996.
While so, the Governing Council of Consortium of Institutions of Higher Learning, by Resolution dated 08.03.2007, enhanced petitioner’s his salary on par with the Director, 21st Century Gurukulams. By the said Resolution, the Director’s pay was fixed at Rs.25,000/- with free accommodation and boarding, in parity with the Associate Professor in UGC Pay Scales of 1996. However, Petitioner was not provided with these benefits and was entitled to allowances such as HRA and DA. Thereafter, the Governing Council of Consortium of Institutions of Higher Learning passed Resolution on 29.02.2012 authorising the Chairman to take a decision for fixing the pay provided under UGC Pay Scales of 2006 of Associate Professor without considering the AGP and other allowances. Despite the Governing Council’s resolutions authorizing parity in pay with the Director’s scale, Petitioner received only Rs.37,000/- as consolidated pay from 01.03.2012. This was significantly lower than Rs.72,848/- payable under the UGC 2006 pay scales.
Petitioner therefore, is stated to have submitted multiple representations, latest being the one dated 31.07.2017, seeking rectification of pay disparity, however, no action was taken by Respondents. It is stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh , 2017 (1) SCC 148 , upheld the principle of “equal pay for equal work” and mandated payment of minimum regular pay scales with DA to temporary employees. The Respondents’ failure to comply with this violates this precedent.
3. The 1st respondent filed the counter stating that petitioner was temporarily appointed as a Coordinator for the 21st Century Gurukulams under the Consortium of Institutes of Higher Learning (CIHL) through proceedings dated 20.01.2007 with a consolidated pay equivalent to the starting pay of a Lecturer as per UGC Pay Scales of 1996. His salary was revised to Rs. 37,000/- per month effective from 01.03.2012, pursuant to proceedings dated 17.05.2012 issued by the Chairman of CIHL and APSCHE.
Petitioner was compensated at par with Gurukulam Directors, who were also paid consolidated salaries. Since no official accommodation was provided, an additional Rs. 2,000/- was sanctioned as HRA. The terms of appointment for Gurukulam Directors, as per letter dated 13.09.2007, included a one-year probationary period followed by a three-year contractual engagement with consolidated pay. It is stated, petitioner’s pay and benefits were revised periodically and disbursed from CIHL’s account, managed by the Chairman of TSCHE. During the Governing Council meeting of CIHL held on 29.02.2012, it was resolved to increase petitioner’s consolidated salary to Rs. 37,000/- per month effective from 01.03.2012. This revision was based on the UGC-2006 Associate Professor pay scale, excluding AGP and other allowances. Following the petitioner’s request, an additional 50% interim relief over the existing salary was granted from May 2015, as per proceedings dated 11.06.2018.
This respondent highlights that despite CIHL’s cessation of operations since 2011, petitioner continued his contractual engagement and his services were informally utilized by
