Summary
Assistant Professors appointed on a contractual basis in Gujarat's government engineering and polytechnic colleges after open selection, performing the same duties as regularly and ad hoc appointed Assistant Professors, were held entitled to the minimum of the pay scale of Assistant Professors on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The State's appeals against the Division Bench judgment granting that relief were dismissed, and the appeals of a later batch whose writ petitions the Division Bench had dismissed altogether were allowed in part on the same terms.
Issues
- Whether Assistant Professors appointed on a contractual basis, who are qualified, selected through an open process and discharge the same functions as regular and ad hoc Assistant Professors, are entitled to the minimum of the pay scale of Assistant Professors.
- Whether the State could resist payment of arrears from three years preceding the filing of the writ petitions with interest at 8%.
- Whether a Division Bench, finding that a single Judge had not followed binding coordinate Bench decisions, could reverse the single Judge and dismiss the writ petitions altogether.
Held
- The contractual appointees were qualified for the post, were selected through an open process by a duly constituted selection committee against sanctioned vacant posts, and the State did not even contend that their duties differed from those of regularly or ad hoc appointed Assistant Professors. The principle of equal pay for equal work applies, and temporary employees are entitled to the minimum of the pay scale so long as they continue in service. (¶¶ 19, 20, 22, 23)
- The State's objection to arrears from three years preceding the writ petitions with 8% interest had already been raised and rejected in Acharya Madhavi, which followed Shivdas v. Union of India and attained finality with the dismissal of the State's special leave petition; interest is the logical consequence of restitutionary relief. (¶ 21)
- The single Judge ought to have followed the Division Bench decisions in Acharya Madhavi and Gohel Vishal Chhaganbhai, but the consequence of not following them was not to dismiss the writ petitions altogether; the Division Bench should have set aside the single Judge's order and disposed of the writ petitions in terms of those decisions. By entering the merits afresh and holding that contractual appointees cannot claim parity, the Division Bench fell into the same error of not following coordinate Benches of the same Court. (¶¶ 29, 30)
- Assistant Professors drawing Rs. 30,000 per month for years without any distinction being shown between their work and that of their regular colleagues is a disturbing state of affairs; the State should rationalise the pay structure on the basis of the functions performed. The appellants and similarly placed Assistant Professors are left free to work out their remedies before the High Court in view of their long continued service. (¶¶ 31, 33)
Result
State's appeals against the High Court judgments dated 14.02.2023 and 22.03.2024 dismissed. Appeals of the contractually appointed Assistant Professors allowed in part: Division Bench judgment dated 20.12.2023 in LPA No. 1371 of 2023 and single Judge order dated 05.07.2023 set aside; the contractual Assistant Professors held entitled to the minimum pay scale admissible to Assistant Professors, with arrears at 8% from three years preceding the filing of the writ petitions.