Denial Of Proportionate Pay To Part-Time Lecturers Is Discrimination And Exploitation: Gujarat High Court

“When qualifications and selection are identical, part-time lecturers cannot be paid disproportionately less”, Gujarat High Court, delivered a landmark ruling granting relief to permanent part-time lecturers in government-aided colleges. The Court declared that the State could not deny pro rata parity in pay scales and benefits to part-time lecturers appointed before 21 March 2000, when they possessed identical qualifications, underwent the same selection process, and performed the same teaching duties as full-time lecturers.

The Court categorically held that “denial of proportionate salary to part-time lecturers amounts to discrimination and exploitation” and directed the State to revise its policy in accordance with UGC regulations and constitutional guarantees.

The petitioner, a permanent part-time lecturer, had challenged the Gujarat Government’s resolutions of 2007, 2012 and 2015 which provided only token increases in honorarium, leaving part-time teachers grossly underpaid compared to their full-time counterparts. While full-time lecturers had benefitted from implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission, the part-time lecturers, despite sharing the same academic qualifications and mode of appointment, continued to receive meagre sums.

The State argued that the UGC regulations recommending pro rata parity were only advisory and not binding on State Governments. It further contended that part-time lecturers could not be equated with full-time teachers, as their workload and responsibilities differed. The UGC, however, clarified that permanent part-time lecturers appointed before 2000 were a distinct category and entitled under Clause 12 of its 1998 Notification to proportionate salary, increments, and allowances, unlike guest lecturers who were paid honorarium.

The first and central question before the Court was whether the UGC’s regulations on pay parity are binding upon the State Government. Justice Bhatt observed that while the UGC’s recommendations on pay are not automatically binding, “once the State chooses to adopt UGC norms for full-time teachers, it cannot selectively deny them to part-time teachers similarly situated.”

The Court examined the constitutional implications under Articles 14 and 23. On equality, it ruled that “where qualifications, mode of selection and core duties are identical, the State cannot create artificial classifications to deny parity. Such discrimination strikes at the heart of Article 14.” On exploitation, the Court observed that extracting the same academic work for a fraction of the pay “is not merely unfair labour practice but a form of forced labour prohibited under Article 23.”

Rejecting the State’s plea of financial burden, the Court invoked the words of the Supreme Court in All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India (1993), reminding that “financial implications can never be an excuse for denying constitutional and statutory rights.” Justice Bhatt reiterated that pragmatic governance “does not mean deprivation of legitimate claims of weaker sections of society.”

The Court declared the State Government Resolutions of 17 January 2012 and 30 May 2015 illegal and unconstitutional. It issued a writ of mandamus directing the State to extend pro rata pay parity and benefits to permanent part-time teachers appointed prior to 21 March 2000, in terms of UGC’s 1998 regulations. These lecturers are now entitled to half or proportionate salary, along with increments, dearness allowance, and other service benefits, just as full-time teachers receive.

For lecturers appointed after the UGC’s shift in policy in 2000, the Court clarified that they will be governed by the honorarium system applicable to guest lecturers, capped by the UGC at ₹1000 per lecture or ₹25,000 per month. The Court made it clear that the decision is subject to the outcome of the pending Letters Patent Appeal No. 369 of 2016.

This ruling marks a watershed moment for service law in higher education. By invoking constitutional guarantees and rejecting artificial distinctions, the Gujarat High Court restored parity and dignity to a cadre of teachers who had long suffered wage discrimination. The judgment recognizes that fairness in pay is not just a matter of policy but a constitutional imperative.

In Justice Bhatt’s words, “when the State implements UGC recommendations for full-time teachers, its refusal to do so for part-time teachers with the same qualifications is nothing but unconstitutional discrimination.”

Date of Decision: 13 August 2025