'Not Just Reciting Verses': Nation Must Treat Teachers with Dignity, Grant Equal Pay for Equal Work, says Supreme Court - 2025-10-10

'Treat Teachers With Dignity': Supreme Court Upholds Equal Pay Principle for Contractual Assistant Professors in Gujarat

New Delhi: In a significant judgment reinforcing the dignity of educators, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', directing the State of Gujarat to pay contractually appointed Assistant Professors the minimum of the pay scale applicable to their regularly appointed counterparts. The Court lamented the "abysmally low" salaries paid to these educators for nearly two decades, stating that a nation's commitment to quality education is reflected in how it treats its teachers.

"Academicians, lecturers and professors are the intellectual backbone of any nation," the bench observed, adding, "It is just not enough to keep reciting gurubramha gururvishnu gurdevo maheshwarah at public functions. If we believe in this declaration, it must be reflected in the way the nation treats its teachers."

Case Background

The judgment addresses a clutch of appeals involving two groups of contractual Assistant Professors working in Government Engineering and Polytechnic Colleges in Gujarat. For years, these educators, appointed to fill thousands of vacant sanctioned posts, were paid a fixed monthly salary (around ₹30,000) despite performing duties identical to their ad hoc and regularly appointed colleagues, who earned significantly more.

The legal battle began when these contractual professors, alongside a group of ad hoc professors, approached the Gujarat High Court. A single Judge in 2016 directed the State to pay the contractual appointees the minimum of the pay scale applicable to Assistant Professors. This decision was upheld by a Division Bench in the case of State of Gujarat v. Gohel Vishal Chhaganbhai , prompting the State to appeal to the Supreme Court.

In a separate but related matter, another group of contractual professors were first granted full pay parity by a single Judge, but a Division Bench later reversed this and dismissed their petitions entirely. This group also appealed to the Supreme Court.

State's Arguments vs. Court's Analysis

The State of Gujarat argued that since the professors were appointed on a contractual basis, they were bound by the terms of their contract and could not claim parity with ad hoc or regular employees. The State highlighted that the selection process and nature of appointment were distinct.

The Supreme Court rejected these contentions, siding with the High Court's findings. The Court noted that the State had not demonstrated any difference in the duties and functions performed by the contractual professors compared to regular or ad hoc appointees.

The judgment emphasized a crucial finding from the High Court: > "…they are discharging the same responsibilities, teaching to the same students, in the same Government Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics. There is no functional difference pointed out by the State in their work. Hence, in our opinion no discriminatory treatment ought to have been given... The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' will be applicable in such circumstances."

The Court found it "disturbing" that highly qualified professors, selected through a proper process against sanctioned posts, were forced to subsist on "abysmally low" salaries for nearly two decades while the State grappled with thousands of vacant teaching positions.

Precedents and Final Decision

The Supreme Court relied on established legal principles, including its own decision in * Sabha Shanker Dube v. Divisional Forest Officer *, which affirmed that temporary employees are entitled to the minimum of the pay scale as long as they continue in service.

The Court delivered a two-part ruling:

• State's Appeals Dismissed: The appeals filed by the State of Gujarat in the Gohel Vishal Chhaganbhai matter were dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's direction to pay the contractual professors the minimum of the pay scale of Assistant Professors.

• Professors' Appeals Allowed: In the second set of appeals, where the Division Bench had dismissed the professors' writ petitions, the Supreme Court set aside that "extreme" order. Applying the same principle of parity established in the first case, the Court allowed the appeal and directed that these professors also be paid the minimum of the scale.

In both cases, the Court ordered that arrears, calculated at 8% interest, be paid from three years preceding the date the original writ petitions were filed. The judgment leaves the door open for these long-serving professors to seek further remedies, including regularization, before the High Court.