REPORTABLE

2025 INSC 1026 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 1347 OF 2024

SHAH SAMIR BHARATBHAI & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 6523 OF 2024

WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. OF 2025
@ DIARY NO. 26736/2024

WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. OF 2025
@ DIARY NO. 26794/2024

WITH
Signature Not Verified
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. OF 2025
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.08.22

@ DIARY NO. 26843/2024

17:50:12 IST
Reason:

1
 JUDGMENT

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. These clutch of appeals stem from two judgments delivered by

the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat. In the first

judgment1, State of Gujarat & Anr. v. Gohel Vishal Chhaganbhai &

Ors. State’s Letter Patent Appeals against orders of the single Judge

granting the minimum scale of Assistant Professors to the

respondents contractually appointed as Assistant Professors was

dismissed. The State is before us in the first set of Civil Appeals. The

second set of Civil Appeals pertain to some of the subsequently

appointed contractual Assistant Professors, whose writ petitions

were allowed by the single Judge granting complete parity with

similarly placed Assistant Professors. The Division Bench, in State’s

Letter Patent Appeals went to the other extreme of allowing the

appeals and dismissing the writ petitions altogether. Thus, the

contractually appointed Assistant Professors are before us.

3. While applying the principles of equal pay for equal work and

confirming the directions of the Division Bench to pay a minimum of

1 R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 1159 of 2017 dated 14.02.2023, in R/MCA No. 721 of 2024 dated
22.03.2024.
2
the pay scale of Assistant Professors to the respondents, we have

dismissed the State’s appeals. Applying the same principles, we have

allowed the Civil Appeals filed by similarly placed contractually

appointed Assistant Professors and directed that they shall be paid

minimum of the scale payable to Assistant Professors.

4. Academicians, lecturers and professors are the intellectual

backbone of any nation, as they dedicate their lives to shaping the

minds and character of future generations. Their work goes far

beyond delivering lessons—it involves mentoring, guiding research,

nurturing critical thinking, and instilling values that contribute to

the progress of society. However, in many contexts, the compensation

and recognition extended to them do not truly reflect the significance

of their contribution. When educators are not treated with dignity or

offered respectable emoluments, it diminishes the value a country

places on knowledge and undermines the motivation of those

entrusted with building its intellectual capital. By ensuring fair

remuneration and dignified treatment, we affirm the importance of

their role and reinforce the nation’s commitment to quality

education, innovation, and a brighter future for its youth.

3
5. It is just not enough to keep reciting gurubramha gururvishnu

gurdevo maheshwarah 2 at public functions. If we believe in this

declaration, it must be reflected in the way the nation treats its

teachers.

6. We will first be dealing with the appeals filed by the State

against the judgment of the Division Bench dated 14.02.2023,

thereafter, we will take up the appeals filed by the contractually

appointed Assistant Professors.

Re: Appeals Preferred by State of Gujarat – In State of Gujarat &

Anr. v. Gohel Vishal Chhaganbhai & Ors. This decision will also
dispose of Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) (Diary No.)-
26736/2024, SLP (C) (Diary No.)- 26794/2024 and SLP (C) (Diary
No.)- 26843/2024.

7. We have a serious concern about the way we treat our teachers.

They educate our future generations, enable them to acquire the

necessary qualifications and expertise. The respondents have been

teaching in various Government Engineering Colleges and other

Institutions of the State of Gujarat. The All-India Council for

Technical Education has declared that these lecturers must be

2 गुरुब्रर्ह्मा गुरुिवर्�ुः गुरुद� वो महे�रः ।

गुरुः साक्षात् परब्रह्म त�ै श्री गुरुवे नमः ।।

4
redesignated as Assistant Professors. Their story, to the extent that

it is relevant for disposal of these appeals is as follows: -

8. The State of Gujarat submits that a significant number of posts

in Government Engineering and Polytechnic Colleges remained

vacant for a long period, with some positions reportedly unfilled for

over 20 years. It is stated that through a resolution in 2008, a

decision was taken to appoint Assistant Professors on ad hoc basis,

and this decision led to a large number of Assistant Professors being

appointed on an ad hoc basis. In the same year, when AICTE

sanctioned additional seats, the Government passed yet another

resolution on 12.09.2008 sanctioning 156 posts of lecturers and it

was then decided that the said posts must be filled on a contractual

basis. Therefore, an advertisement was issued in September 2009

and it was notified that selection will be based on merit, confining to

those who had obtained first division in the qualifying examination.

9. The respondents were appointed on contractual basis as

Assistant Professors in various Governmental Engineering and

Polytechnic Colleges of the State. In these appeals, we are concerned

about their claim for parity in pay with Assistant Professors who are

performing identical duties and functions.

5
10. Judicial scrutiny commenced with the filing of writ petitions,

way back in 2015 by two sets of Assistant Professors. Those who were

appointed on an ad hoc basis and those who are appointed on a

contractual basis, like that of the respondents.

11. Assistant Professors appointed on an ad hoc basis sought parity

of pay with those who were similarly appointed on ad hoc basis prior

to 08.05.2008. They contended that ad hoc Lecturers appointed prior

to 08.05.2008 were getting large number of benefits, with

approximate parity with regularly appointed Assistant Professors and

there was no justification to create a sub-classification within ad hoc

Assistant Professors, on the basis of those appointed before

08.05.2008 and those after. These cases were decided in the Division

Bench judgment in Acharya Madhavi Bhavin & Ors v. State of

Gujarat.

12. The other set of writ petitions were instituted by respondents

who were appointed on a contractual basis. Their cases are decided

in the Division Bench judgment in State of Gujarat v. Gohel Vishal

Chhaganbhai.

13. Decision in both the Division Bench judgments originates from

the decision of learned single Judge of the High Court who gave a
6
common hearing for the ad hoc Assistant Professors as well as the

contractual Assistant Professors. By his judgment dated 07.09.2016,

the single Judge partly allowed the prayer of ad hoc Assistant

Professors and directed that they shall have parity of pay with ad hoc

Lecturers appointed before 20.05.2008. Insofar as the Assistant

Professors, appointed on contractual basis are concerned, there was

a direction that they will be entitled to a minimum of the pay scale of

Assistant Professors. In both cases, the single Judge restricted the

consequent arrears from the year 2015. The relevant part of the

judgment is as under:

“6. It also appears that some of the writ applicants have

been appointed on contractual basis i.e., on the fixed pay of
Rs 25,000/- so far as Diploma Colleges are concerned and
Rs. 30,000/- for the Degree Colleges.
(…)

65. In the result, all the writ applications succeed in part.

The State is directed to put the ad hoc Lecturers appointed
after May 2008 on par with the ad hoc Lecturers appointed
prior to May 2008. The ad hoc Lecturers appointed after
May 2008 shall be paid the salary and other allowances on
par with the same received by the ad hoc Lecturers
appointed prior to May 2008. Such benefits shall be granted
to them with effect from January 2015 onwards. It is
directed 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
with effect from January 2015.”
(emphasis supplied)

7
14. Insofar as the decision in the case of ad hoc Assistant Professors

is concerned, the State preferred LPA 1359 of 2017 before the

Division Bench of the High Court. Similarly, the ad hoc Assistant

Professors themselves filed LPAs before the Division Bench. The

Division Bench of the High Court heard the appeal filed by the State

against grant of parity of pay to ad hoc Assistant Professors and by

its judgment dated 24.01.2018 in Acharya Madhavi (Supra)

confirmed the decision of the single Judge with a minor modification

that the ad hoc Assistant Professors will be entitled to arrears at the

rate of 8% from 3 years preceding the filing of their writ petitions. The

relevant portion of the Judgement of the Division Bench is extracted

hereunder:

“[9.0] In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
Letters Patent Appeal Nos.1354/2017, 1359/2017 and
2148/2017 preferred by the appellant – original
respondents – State Authorities deserve to be dismissed
and are, accordingly, dismissed. Letters Patent Appeal
No.1184/2017 in Special Civil Application No.8152/2015
preferred by the original petitioners of Special Civil
Application No.8152/2015 is hereby partly allowed and the
impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single
Judge in Special Civil Application No.8152/2015 is hereby
modified to the extent it is held that the original petitioners
shall be entitled to the salary and other benefits at par with
those adhoc lecturers appointed prior to May 2008 and they
shall be granted such benefit from the last 3 years
preceding the filing of the petition i.e. from 2012 onwards.
No costs.”
(emphasis supplied)

8
15. The Special Leave Petition filed by the State against the above

referred judgment of the Division Bench in Acharya Madhavi (supra)

was dismissed by this Court on 14.12.2018.

16. On the other hand, in the appeals filed by the State against the

contractual Assistant Professors the respondents herein, the Division

Bench of the High Court in State of Gujarat v. Gohel Vishal

Chhaganbhai, by the order impugned dismissed the appeals. The

Review Petitions filed by the State were also dismissed on

22.03.2024. Thus, the State is before us in these civil appeals.

17. The contention before us is not different from what was

advanced before the single Judge or even the Division Bench of the

High Court. The State submitted that the appellants were appointed

on a contractual basis, and their terms and conditions must

therefore be governed by the contract. They would emphasize that

the selection process as well as the nature of appointment is starkly

distinct and, as such, claim for parity with ad hoc employees, much

less regularly appointed Assistant Professors, is impermissible. In

any event, they would submit, once appointed on the basis of a

contract, the learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench could

not have granted them pay and allowances at the rate of the

9
minimum scale of Assistant Professors. State also has an objection

about the payment of arrears at the rate of 8% from the last three

years preceding filing of the writ petitions.

18. Analysis: More than the justifiable claim for parity, it is rather

disturbing to see how lecturers, holding the post of Assistant

Professors, continue to be paid and subsist on such low salaries for

almost two decades. We are informed that, of the 2720 sanctioned

posts, only 923 posts were filled by regularly appointed staff. To

address this shortage and to ensure continuity of academic activities,

the State Government has resorted to ad hoc and contractual

appointments. While 158 posts were filled by ad hoc appointments,

902 posts were filled on a contractual basis. This measure left 737

posts vacant, and this number in fact increased with the sanctioning

of 525 new posts of Assistant Professors and 347 posts of Lecturers.

With large number of sanctioned posts remaining vacant, the State

Government continues to make appointments on an ad hoc and

contractual basis.

19. As regards the contention of the State that the respondents,

appointed on contractual basis will not be entitled to the relief

granted to them by the single Judge, the Division Bench observed:

10
 “24….We notice that the present respondents though
contractual appointees are equally eligible and qualified to
be appointed on the post of lecturers. Their appointment
was made through a open selection process as adopted by
the State department by forming a selection committee
constituted in terms of the Government resolution dated
20.05.2008 issued by the Education department. The
selection committee consisted of the Director of technical
education (chairman), Principal of Engineering/
polytechnic/ pharmacy college (member), Expert of the
subject (member) and Joint Director technical education. In
fact, advertisements were published calling for applications
on sanctioned vacant posts, applications of eligible
candidates were accepted, written exams were held,
qualified candidates were called for interview and a
meritorious candidates list was notified and appointment
orders were issued. Thus, there cannot be dispute about
writ applicants possessing the requisite qualifications as
per the statutory recruitment rules prevalent at the relevant
time….”

20. In fact, the State has not even contended before us that the

respondents perform duties and functions that are distinct from

those of the regularly appointed Assistant Professors or even the

ad hoc Assistant Professors. It is in this context that the High Court

dismissed the State’s appeal by holding that:

“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.”

11
21. The further contention of the State is that, even assuming that

the respondents are entitled to a minimum of the pay scale they will

not be entitled to arrears with effect from 3 years preceding the filing

of the writ petition. Identical issue was raised by the State in the

appeal against the decision of the Division Bench in Acharya Madhavi

(Supra). This Court considered and rejected the same, rightly so,

because the said decision is based on the principle laid down by this

Court in Shivdas vs. Union of India & Ors 3. The order impugned

followed the decision in Acharya Madhavi (Supra), and the said

judgment has attained finality with the dismissal of the Special Leave

Petition by this Court. The last submission is with respect to the

interest of 8% payable to the respondent. Even this submission must

be rejected in view of the same being raised, decided, and rejected in

the case of Acharya Madhavi (Supra). Interest being the logical

consequence of the restitutionary relief, we see no reason to review

the said position.

22. In Sabha Shanker Dube v. Divisional Forest Officer, 4 while

drawing the distinction between claims for regularization, and parity

3 AIR 2007 SC 1330.

4 (2019) 12 SCC 297.
12
in pay, this Court affirmed the constitutional principle of equal pay

for equal work and held:

“12. In view of the judgment in Jagjit Singh [State of

Punjab v. Jagjit Singh 5], we are unable to uphold the view
of the High Court that the appellants herein are not entitled
to be paid the minimum of the pay scales. We are not called
upon to adjudicate on the rights of the appellants relating to
the regularisation of their services. We are concerned only
with the principle laid down by this Court initially in Putti
Lal [State of U.P. v. Putti Lal 6], relating to persons who are
similarly situated to the appellants and later affirmed
in Jagjit Singh [State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh], that
temporary employees are entitled to minimum of the pay
scales as long as they continue in service.”
(emphasis supplied)

23. For these reasons, appeals filed by State of Gujarat must fail.

Accordingly civil appeals arising from the judgment of the High Court

dated 14.02.2023 and 22.03.2024 are dismissed.

Re: Appeals by contractually appointed Assistant Professors in

Shah Samir Bharatbhai & Ors. v. The State of Gujarat & Ors
i.e. SLP (C) No. 1347/2024. This decision will also dispose of
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 6523/2024.

24. These appeals are in a way sequel to the two leading decisions

of the Division Bench of the High Court which have attained finality

with the dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions. The life of the

appellants, working as Assistant Professors on contractual basis has

5 (2017) 1 SCC 148.

6 (2006) 9 SCC 337.
13
remained the same, as those of their colleagues examined in the

previous episode. Here again, the appellants were appointed

pursuant to the advertisements dated 27.09.2012 and 20.02.2013,

issued on the basis of the Governmental Resolution for appointment

to sanction posts through contract. The appellants applied and they

were selected on merit and appointed as Assistant Professor (Class

II) in the Government Engineering Colleges.

25. We have already indicated that similarly placed contractual

Assistant Professors, in the case of State of Gujarat v. Gohel Vishal

Chhaganbhai & Ors, filed writ petitions before the High Court seeking

parity of pay with ad hoc or regularly appointed employees. Similarly,

yet another set of ad hoc Assistant Professors initiated proceedings

in Acharya Madhavi Bhavin & Ors v. State of Gujarat, seeking parity

of pay with those who were similarly appointed on an ad hoc basis

prior to 08.05.2008. Those writ petitions came to be allowed by the

learned single Judge by common order dated 07.09.2016, directing

the ad hoc Assistant Professors appointed after 08.05.2008 to be

treated with parity with those appointed prior to said date. Similarly,

the learned single Judge also directed that contractually appointed

14
Assistant Professors must get the minimum of the pay scale provided

for Assistant Professors.

26. We have also indicated that the State’s challenge to the decision

of the single Judge was repelled, and it culminated in the decisions

of the Division Bench in Acharya Madhavi (supra) and Gohel Vishal

Chhaganbhai (supra) with a minor variation with respect to date of

receiving of arrears and interest. These judgments have attained

finality with the dismissal of Special Leave Petitions by this Court.

27. The appellants filed writ petitions in 2018 seeking parity with

regular or ad hoc Assistant Professors on the ground that as

contractual employees undertake similar duties and perform the

same functions. The writ petitions were allowed by the learned single

Judge by his order dated 05.07.2023. The learned single Judge,

however, gave full relief by directing that the appellants should get

pay scale and other benefits equivalent to that of the Assistant

Professors appointed regularly. Learned single Judge also granted

annual increments and other benefits at par with the regularly

appointed Assistant Professors from the date of initial appointment.

28. The State filed a Letter Patents Appeal before the Division

Bench, contending that the single Judge could not have exceeded the
15
relief granted in the earlier batch and directed parity, particularly

when the appellants were appointed on a contractual basis. More

importantly, the State argued that the single Judge was bound by

the decisions of the Division Bench in Gohel Vishal Chhaganbhai

(Supra), Acharya Madhavi (Supra). It was argued that in these

decisions, the Division Bench only granted minimum of pay scale of

Assistant Professors and therefore the single Judge committed a

serious error in not following the binding precedent.

29. In the order impugned before us we noticed that the Division

Bench went to the other extreme by reversing the judgment in its

entirety and dismissed the writ petitions altogether. The Division

Bench was of the view that the single Judge has not followed the

discipline of law by simply following the two precedents i.e. the

decisions in Acharya Madhavi (supra) and Gohel Vishal Chhaganbhai

(supra). For this reason, the Division Bench felt that the judgment

of the single Judge is unsustainable. Further, the Division Bench

entered into the merits of the matter and came to its own conclusion

that the contractual appointed Assistant Professors cannot seek

parity of pay with regular employees.

16
30. There was no doubt about the fact that the learned single Judge

should have followed the decisions in Acharya Madhavi (Supra) and

Gohel Vishal Chhaganbhai (supra). However, the consequence of not

following the said decisions is not to set-aside the decision of the

single Judge and dismiss the writ petitions altogether. The Division

Bench should have set-aside the order passed by the single Judge

and disposed of the writ petitions in terms of the decisions in Acharya

Madhavi (Supra) and Gohel Vishal Chhaganbhai (supra). By not

adopting the natural course of disposing of the writ petitions in terms

of the decided cases, the Division Bench fell into the same error as

that of the learned single Judge. Division Bench should have followed

the decisions of two co-ordinate Benches of the same Court.

31. The appellants were seeking parity of pay. The prayer for

regularization, though made in the earlier rounds of litigation was

never accepted. The facts of the present case are rather egregious.

Assistant professors appointed on contractual basis during 2011 to

2025 have been working at abysmally low monthly emoluments for

the last two decades. While there is no material whatsoever drawing

out a distinction between the duties and functions performed by

17
them and that of their colleagues appointed regularly or on ad hoc

basis, they continue to draw monthly salary of Rs. 30,000/-.

32. Learned counsels for the appellants have given us a

comparative chart drawing out the distinction between the regular

Assistant Professors, ad hoc appointee and contractual appointee,

like that of the respondents:

SN Assistant Minimum Recruitment Nature of 2012 Gross 2025 gross

Professor Educational Duties salary (per salary (per
Category Qualification month) month)
1. Contractual M. Tech. Identical Rs.30,000/- Rs.30,000/-
(Petitioners Duties
herein) Through
2. Ad-Hoc B. Tech. Public Rs.34,000/- Rs.1,16,000/-
(Post-2008) Advertisement
against (Teaching (approx.) (approx.)
3. Regular M. Tech. sanctioned Engineering Rs.40,412/- Rs.1,36,952/-
(Post-2008) post Students in
Government (approx.) (approx.)
Engineering
Colleges of the
State of
Gujarat and
occasional
administrative
work.)

33. It is disturbing that Assistant Professors are getting monthly

emoluments of Rs. 30,000/-. It is high time that the State takes up

the issue and rationalize the pay structure on the basis of functions

that they perform. For the present we have followed the decisions of

the Gujarat High Court in Acharya Madhavi (supra) and Gohel Vishal

18
Chhaganbhai (supra) to grant appellants the same relief as in those

cases. We leave it open to the appellants and such similarly placed

Assistant Professors to work out their remedies before the High Court

in view of their continued service for a long period. It is for the High

Court to consider the same and pass orders as per law.

34. For the reasons stated above, we allow the appeals and set aside

the judgment and order of the High Court passed by the Division

Bench in LPA No. 1371 of 2023 dated 20.12.2023 as well as by the

single Judge in R/Special Civil Application No. 11567 of 2018 dated

05.07.2023. Allowing the appeals in part, we direct that the

contractually appointed Assistant Professors, shall be entitled to the

minimum pay scale admissible to Assistant Professors. Arrears

calculated at the rate of 8% shall be paid from three years preceding

the date of filing of the writ petitions. With these directions the

appeals stand allowed.

………………………………....J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]

………………………………....J.
[JOYMALYA BAGCHI]
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 22, 2025

19