Contractual Assistant Professors Are Entitled to Minimum Pay Scale; Arrears Payable with 8% Interest

A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi of the Supreme Court heard appeals arising out of Gujarat High Court judgments that concerned claims by contractual and ad hoc Assistant Professors for parity of pay with regularly appointed Assistant Professors. The appeals included challenges by the State of Gujarat to Division Bench and single-judge orders that had granted minimum scale pay and arrears to lecturers appointed on contractual or ad hoc terms in Government engineering and polytechnic colleges.

The Court held that similarly placed contractual Assistant Professors who performed identical duties with regular and ad hoc colleagues were entitled to the minimum of the pay scale for Assistant Professors and to arrears calculated at the rate of 8% from three years preceding the filing of their writ petitions. The Court dismissed the State’s appeals against the Division Bench judgment in State of Gujarat v. Gohel Vishal Chhaganbhai and allowed certain civil appeals by contractual appointees, directing payment of minimum scale and arrears. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "24. …As rightly pointed out by Mr. Pujara, 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 by State vis-a-vis ad hoc lecturers appointed prior to them. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' will be applicable in such circumstances." The Court also cited the single judge’s earlier formulation that "the contractual Lecturers shall be paid the minimum of the pay scale so far as the post of Lecturer is concerned with all other allowances attached to the same."

Background The dispute arose from chronic vacancies in sanctioned teaching posts across Gujarat Government engineering and polytechnic colleges, prompting the State to appoint large numbers of lecturers on ad hoc and contractual terms from 2008 onwards. Two streams of litigation unfolded: ad hoc appointees sought parity with ad hoc lecturers appointed before May 2008, while contractual appointees sought parity with regularly appointed Assistant Professors. A single-judge of the Gujarat High Court in 2016 and later orders directed parity in pay for ad hoc appointees and the minimum pay scale for contractual appointees, with arrears limited from January 2015 or three years prior to suit in some cases.

The Division Bench in Acharya Madhavi Bhavin affirmed parity for ad hoc appointees with modification on the period for arrears; its decision attained finality on SLP dismissal. In State of Gujarat v. Gohel Vishal Chhaganbhai, the Division Bench dismissed the State’s appeals and confirmed entitlement of contractual appointees to minimum scale pay. The State challenged those decisions before the Supreme Court, contending that contractual terms should govern entitlement and that parity or arrears were impermissible.

The Supreme Court applied settled principles of "equal pay for equal work" and followed precedents including Shivdas and subsequent decisions recognising that temporary employees who were similarly situated were entitled to minimum pay scales while in service. It rejected the State’s argument that contractual appointment per se disentitled employees from minimum scale relief, and it refused to disturb precedents on the quantum and temporal scope of arrears and interest. The Court noted the prolonged low remuneration—monthly emoluments of around Rs.30,000 for many contractual Assistant Professors—and directed the State to pay minimum scales and arrears with 8% interest from three years preceding the writ petitions. The Court allowed the appeals by contractual Assistant Professors in part and dismissed the State’s appeals.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1026 Case Title: Shah Samir Bharatbhai & Ors. v. The State of Gujarat & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in the judgment extract] For the Respondent(s): [Mr. Pujara (appearing for State) ]