Holding

Contractually appointed Assistant Professors performing the same duties as regular Assistant Professors are entitled to the minimum pay scale of Assistant Professors, with arrears at 8% for the three years preceding the writ petitions.

Summary

The petitioners, contractually appointed Assistant Professors in Gujarat's government engineering and polytechnic colleges, sought parity in pay with regularly appointed Assistant Professors, arguing that they performed identical duties. The State of Gujarat contended that contractual appointments were governed by the terms of the contract and that parity with regular staff was impermissible. The Supreme Court applied the constitutional principle of "equal pay for equal work" and affirmed earlier High Court decisions that contractual teachers are entitled to at least the minimum pay scale of Assistant Professors. It rejected the State's arguments, held that no functional distinction existed, and ordered payment of the minimum pay scale with arrears calculated at 8% for the three years preceding the writ petitions. Consequently, the Court dismissed the State's appeals and allowed the petitioners' appeals, directing the payment of the minimum pay scale and arrears.

Issues considered

Whether contractually appointed Assistant Professors are entitled to parity in pay with regularly appointed Assistant Professors performing identical duties.
Whether the State can deny arrears and interest to contractual teachers despite the principle of equal pay for equal work.
Whether the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court erred in dismissing the writ petitions of contractual teachers.

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards claim for parity in pay by the respondents appointed on contractual basis as Assistant Professors with Assistant Professors who are performing identical duties and functions. Headnotes† Service law – Equal pay for equal work Contractually appointed Assistant Professors teaching in various Government Engineering Colleges and other Institutions – Parity in pay with similarly placed Assistant Professors who are performing identical duties and functions sought – Single Judge held that they would be

Subjects

Claim for parity in payContractual appointed Assistant ProfessorsAssistant Professors performing identical duties and functionsEqual pay for equal workGovernment Engineering CollegesMinimum of the pay scaleGurubramha gururvishnu gurdevo maheshwarahPublic functionsAbysmally low monthly emolumentsRationalize the pay structure

Judgment

[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1161 : 2025 INSC 1026

Shah Samir Bharatbhai & Ors.
v.
The State of Gujarat & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 11028 of 2025)
22 August 2025
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and
Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards claim for parity in pay by the respondents
appointed on contractual basis as Assistant Professors with
Assistant Professors who are performing identical duties and
functions.

Headnotes†
Service law – Equal pay for equal work – Principle of –
Contractually appointed Assistant Professors teaching
in various Government Engineering Colleges and other
Institutions – Parity in pay with similarly placed Assistant
Professors who are performing identical duties and functions
sought – Single Judge held that they would be entitled to a
minimum of the pay scale of Assistant Professors, which was
upheld by the Division Bench – Challenge to:
Held: Applying the principles of equal pay for equal work and
confirming the directions of the Division Bench, the respondents-
contractually appointed Assistant Professors, entitled to the
minimum pay scale admissible to Assistant Professors – It is just
not enough to keep reciting gurubramha gururvishnu gurdevo
maheshwarah at public functions, if the said declaration is believed,
it must be reflected in the way the nation treats its teachers –
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 them and that of their colleagues appointed regularly or on ad
hoc basis, they continue to draw monthly salary of Rs. 30,000/-
which is disturbing – It is high time that the State takes up the
1162 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

issue and rationalize the pay structure on the basis of functions
that they perform. [Paras 3, 5, 31-34]

Case Law Cited
Shivdas v. Union of India & Ors. [2007] 1 SCR 1127 : AIR 2007
SC 1330; Sabha Shanker Dube v. Divisional Forest Officer (2019)
12 SCC 297 - referred to.

List of Keywords
Claim for parity in pay; Contractual appointed Assistant Professors;
Assistant Professors performing identical duties and functions; Equal
pay for equal work; Government Engineering Colleges; Minimum
of the pay scale; Gurubramha gururvishnu gurdevo maheshwarah;
Public functions; Abysmally low monthly emoluments; Rationalize
the pay structure.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11028
of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.2023 of the High Court
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in LPA No. 1371 of 2023
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 11029, 11030-11031, 11032-11033, and
11034-11035 of 2025

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv., Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Ms. Devyani Bhatt,
Ms. Neha Singh, Naman Tandon, Alakh Alok Srivastava.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Nikhil Goel, Colin Gonsalves, Balbir Singh, Sr. Advs, Pradhuman
Gohil, Mrs. Taruna Singh Gohil, Alapati Sahithya Krishna, Ms.
Hetvi K. Patel, Rushabh N. Kapadia, Ms. Hetvi Ketan Patel, Ms.
Taniya Bansal, Ms. Siddhi Gupta, Ms. Riddhi Jain, Abhishek Yadav,
Ullas Gohil, Prakhar Srivastava, Abhay Malik, Ms. Preeti Gupta,
Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Ms. Neha Singh, Naman
Tandon.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1163

Shah Samir Bharatbhai & Ors. v. The State of Gujarat & Ors.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

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
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

1 R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 1159 of 2017 dated 14.02.2023, in R/MCA No. 721 of 2024 dated 22.03.2024.
1164 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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.
5. It is just not enough to keep reciting gurubramha gururvishnu gurdevo
maheshwarah2 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 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

2 गुुरुर्ब्ररह्माा गुुरुर्वि�िष्णुःः� गुुरुर्देेवोो महेेश्वरःः।
गुुरुःः सााक्षाात्् परब्रह्म तस्मैै श्रीी गुुरुवेे नमःः।।
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1165

Shah Samir Bharatbhai & Ors. v. The State of Gujarat & Ors.

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.
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
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:
1166 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

“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)

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
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1167

Shah Samir Bharatbhai & Ors. v. The State of Gujarat & Ors.

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)

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 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.
1168 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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:
“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
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1169

Shah Samir Bharatbhai & Ors. v. The State of Gujarat & Ors.

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.”
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 & Ors3. 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 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 Singh5], 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

3 AIR 2007 SC 1330.
4 (2019) 12 SCC 297.
5 (2017) 1 SCC 148.
6 (2006) 9 SCC 337.
1170 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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 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
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1171

Shah Samir Bharatbhai & Ors. v. The State of Gujarat & Ors.

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 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.
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
1172 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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
Through
herein)
Public
2. Ad-Hoc B. Tech. Advertise- Rs.34,000/- Rs.1,16,000/-
(Post- (Teaching
ment
2008) Engineering (approx.) (approx.)
against
Students in
3. Regular M. Tech. sanctioned Rs.40,412/- Rs.1,36,952/-
Government
(Post- post
Engineering (approx.) (approx.)
2008)
Colleges of
the State of
Gujarat and
occasional
administrative
work.)
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1173

Shah Samir Bharatbhai & Ors. v. The State of Gujarat & Ors.

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 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.

Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain